Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks

Inaccuracy of $15 donation.

The $15 donation remark should be deleted as it's speculation. The city listed on the donation does not match Thomas' (Bethel Park), the full name is not mentioned, and there is a Thomas Crooks in a northern suburb of Pittsburgh (the city listed); he works for a construction company and volunteers at a local YMCA. Who is much older and still alive. 2603:6011:A600:84B1:B196:E0F:2E48:A108 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this too. 24.167.35.28 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is being reported as fact by a number of reliable sources, including the BBC and the New York Times. Is the donation's attribution questioned in any reputable source? If so, such a reference would be worth adding to the article. GhostOfNoMeme 15:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I doubt the NYT would answer a request for better evidence - and their errata/retractions are rarely of anything substantial, tending to belong more in the "the font was actually Geneva" category - but the BBC might be another matter, has anyone asked them?... ELSchissel (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The address listed on the donation form is exactly Bethel Park. That Pittsburgh was listed on the form was undoubtedly a minor mistake because this zip code is a suburban part of Greater Pittsburgh. 100.15.106.249 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No exact address is listed on the donation, only a zipcode (see: The National Post Article featuring it). If you have proof otherwise, please provide it. 2603:6011:A600:84B1:98CA:4ED4:C5B4:42BF (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Per the original FEC filing there is an address on the contribution - you can view the file here: https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Thomas+crooks&two_year_transaction_period=2022&min_date=01%2F01%2F2021&max_date=02%2F01%2F2021 Katealamode (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR; Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources have stated as fact. Once a RS has disputed this, then by all means, introduce the dispute into the article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's the file as posted by the New York Times - https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/fe91e6ba36695009/ac182c3a-full.pdf - linked from this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/trump-gunman-thomas-crooks.html . In any case, the full address on the file is consistent with other published information about Thomas Matthew Crooks. Katealamode (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me, I do not have paid access to NYT article. Can you post a mirror of it so I can review? 2603:6011:A600:84B1:98CA:4ED4:C5B4:42BF (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20240714130125/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/trump-gunman-thomas-crooks.html - it looks like this version links to the FEC site, but the NY Times have since saved a version of the FEC filing on their servers Katealamode (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hang on, how is this original research? It's a citation directly to the relevant FEC filing. Near as I can tell, however, by cross referencing the voter registration using personal information I've managed to collect online, the person at that address has a birth date of 9/20/2003, so the point is moot: the address on file for the donation is the same as the address for the accused's voter registration, so there's no reason to believe it's some other Thomas Crooks. All of this information is assembled from government data. John Moser (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. ELSchissel (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There is further evidence that the donation was made by a 69-year old man living in Pittsburgh who has the same name. See here: https://twitter.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897. 171.66.130.133 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source. The organisation itself appears to have corroborated the fact he donated, as reported in a number of reliable mainstream sources. GhostOfNoMeme 21:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The organization just corroborated that the donation filed above occured from a specific email address in response to a specific email. 71.244.250.97 (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

where? Bohbye (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It's being reported by reliable sources. I think it's reasonable to leave it. Frankserafini87 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Some reliable sources are reporting it. But this still falls under breaking news guidelines, which specifically state that "breaking news" may be unreliable. And furthermore, there are quite a few sources that are not reporting it, or are reporting that it is inaccurate/another person of the same name. Per recently deceased persons, we should not be making potentially inaccurate/disputed claims about a recently dead person. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This entire article is WP:BREAKING (which is one of the reasons I voted to delete it for now). Could you share which RS are reporting that it’s inaccurate/another person? Have there been any retractions or corrections by the already cited RS? Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It should've been deleted, yes. I don't have any specific links, but my readings of the news - they are reporting that someone of the same first/last name has made a donation. And from other sources (that are not necessarily reliable), it is being reported that there is at least one other Pennsylvanian that shares the first and last name (all that is reported for political donations) with the shooter. We need to err on the side of caution and not report any potentially inaccurate information until reliable sources settle on the veracity of the information. We do not and should not report breaking news when it is known to be unreliable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The conflicting information comes from the fact that he put down Pittsburgh as his city, even though he lives in a suburb of Pittsburgh. OpenSecrets only contains his city/zip code. However, the official FEC filing contains his full address, which matches that of the shooter.

Given that there are no other Thomas Crooks at his address, we can say with complete certainty that the donation came from him. Or was at least made under his name/address. 2601:243:C004:F790:4917:A3F:CE28:C2FF (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim you are making amounts to original research and investigation, and should not discount reputable sources. Reputable sources have said that he is the one who made the donation. This is alike discounting climate change scientists based on your own analysis of the data and interpretation of what it means. https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/trumps-shooter-gave-15-to-a-progressive Hikeddeck (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it should be corrected ASAP. 2001:818:EAE0:B300:B98B:D185:311A:1ECC (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources publish. There are multiple reliable sources publishing information that this person made the donation, not a Thomas Crooks but this Thomas Crooks, and not as speculation but as fact. If you think that is not accurate, please provide the reliable sources that support that information. Wikipedia does not engage in original research, and if you need it, here is the guideline on reliable sources. Making your comments in bold will not change this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897?s=46&t=8ldZzn0DJKAF9TZnsepjyw this is interesting. 2603:6011:9600:52C0:E087:EC8A:C8EE:532B (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This is fake. The Milford drive is mentioned in both cases. And Pittsburg vs Bethel park do not matter, one is inside another. https://x.com/ZoomerMidw43464/status/1812749210279673898 2A00:1370:8184:3421:DE09:E2EE:3300:21A4 (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments about uncertainty of political leanings

I don't know how to word this, or if it's even NPOV or OR, but I feel that it needs pointing out that the current reports are just based on what little information is available in public registers.

My current best wording to go before the paragraphs about the donation and his republican registration:

Although being named within hours by the FBI as the shooter, initial reporting on his political believes or a possible motive have so far been based on scarce publicly available information.

Anyone else feel the same or want to word it better? the information vacuum won't stay like this for long, but I think it should be pointed out that this is article a 1000-piece puzzle where we only have a few pieces right now. EditorInTheRye (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

thats not a bad idea IMO NAADAAN (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

should be "beliefs", of course. Believes is a whole 'nother word form of fish. ELSchissel (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I came here to comment on this. "Described as right leaning" has no source associated with it and every report I've read says that those interviewed so far didn't know his opinions on politics. We know his dad was a libertarian and his mom a Democrat and that he's a registered Republican who donated to Democratic causes in the past. It's all very muddled and uncertain and the existing article doesn't make that clear enough. Demosthanos (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. How is the comment about "right-leaning" still up when there isn't any source that's stated that? All we know is that he was a registered Republican. Being registered to a party and having those beliefs are two different thigns. Twinbros04 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I added the right leaning part, it was in the NYT article. A former classmate said he was. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't get past the NYT paywall, but the other things classmates said about him was he was a loner who didn't talk to anyone. In light of that, a single classmate's report that he's "slightly" right-leaning doesn't seem to justify the intro saying that he was "described as right leaning" without qualifiers about the source or the adverb used by the student.

It looks like that no longer exists in the intro and the Political Activities section reads fine to me now, so I'm not too worried, just wanted to make sure that we didn't accidentally fan flames. Demosthanos (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, NYT is a left-leaning journal and not a reliable source to this case. Wikiuserpedia96 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wikiuserpedia96 perhaps you should review WP:RSP and WP:YESPOV. The NYT is certainly a reliable source here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

NYT is left-leaning by far-right standards. What they are is a company first and foremost. ELSchissel (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:BIASED. Sources are not required to be objective or non-biased. If you want to start a discussion regarding The New York Times's reliability, you can do so at WP:RSN. Please be aware that this has been discussed many (46!) times (see WP:NYT). C F A 💬 00:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s fine to say that he’s a registered Republican who contributed to a Democratic PAC. That’s been widely reported. However, Idk if there’s enough evidence to say that he’s right-leaning. It could be mentioned that 1 former classmate described him as slightly leaning to the right or that could be omitted from the intro. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the intro is missing both "slightly" and the fact that a single classmate is the source. That needs to be called out to avoid feeding speculation. Demosthanos (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he was right-leaning. If anything, the donation (which is itself not confirmed) is the strongest evidence of his political beliefs and suggests he was progressive. In the absence of certainty, this statement should be removed. justdweezil (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As of now there is the statement of two classmates suggesting that while in school he may very well have been right-leaning, but one of those is explicitly dated as in 8th grade (which would have been 2017-2018). I do think that that date should be called out in Wikipedia's quote, because that's an awful lot of time during an awfully critical age window for things to change.

I'm open to him having been right-leaning, but I don't think anyone benefits from Wikipedia seeming to come down one way or the other before we get more details, which means that the facts should be transcribed as precisely as they are in the sources. Demosthanos (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's worth considering that high schoolers do not necessarily have the most sophisticated grasp of ideology, and may have been stereotyping based on his affinity for guns or painting libertarian beliefs with a broad brush. A claim that he is "right-leaning" definitely needs qualifications. 38.49.79.101 (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Most *people* don't have sophisticated or coherent ideologies, that doesn't mean they aren't motivated in some way by them, or by group identity with one party or movement or another. I think it's reasonable to include, but once there's more clarity. 2600:1700:8D70:1490:7068:36EA:88DB:364 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Must have been some loud arguments in the shooter's family home, considering all the Trump signs there. ELSchissel (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary documents

I removed a posted image containing info on Crooks as well as personal details of other people, presumably still living, not related to this controversy, per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. We can cite reliable sources that have examined primary documents without needing to showcase the documents themselves, public domain or not. We don't need to turn this or any article into a scrapbook of court documents, receipts, and voter registration records, especially if it increases risks to other people's security. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

feels like the “he had a discord account” bit is unnecessary

can’t edit it out myself since it’s locked obviously, but it’s what it says on the tin. most people have social media accounts, and it doesn’t seem to be directly related to what he’s infamous for. he wasn’t plotting it with friends on discord or anything, it’s just fluff. 70.57.80.178 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Unless he shared or said something there that's relevant to the shooting, it should be removed. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is very irrelevant especially considering it was inactive KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not inactive. Discord came out and said he posted, but not related. 2A00:1370:8184:3421:DE09:E2EE:3300:21A4 (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree given a note worthy trend of radicalized rhetoric trafficked on discord. If it's a typical platform where group polarization can take place it's core to the article and not tangential. Discord isnt just a place to voice, it's also a place to listen. Social media cites are specifically well purposed for intel drops besides their intended purposes. Even the fact that it is so difficult to guess Crooks's motives indicates the possibility of a sophistication excess of a normal 20yo boy's capabilities. For these reasons no detail, no matter how slight, should be omitted. Even the time of each revelation is important to note with an accompanied timeline. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There hasn't been any source claiming anything about the discord account other than the fact that it exists. While not a WP:RELIABLE source, streamer Hasanabi claimed there really wasn't anything on his account, not even a profile picture.

Unless something comes out about his activities on discord, it probably falls under WP:NOTEVERYTHING Emma0mb ^talk 17:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Facebook, reddit, twitter have all at been discussed for the politics (radical and otherwise) posted on those websites. it is not notable for someone to JUST have an account on any of those websites. Gnisacc (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well said in general, but until proven relevant it does seem unnecessary DarkMatterBurger88 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The same is true of cellphones. There is no line which states that "he has a cell phone." While noting which social media accounts he had is necessary for an investigation, unless it becomes relevant evidence it is not appropriate to list on a wikipedia article and is likely intended to paint a biased picture of discord and its users, who are no more radical than those of other media. Discord contains a vast number of users with a diverse spectrum of opinion, moderate, extreme, or otherwise. 2600:1700:6E90:42B0:B241:A67E:27B9:659A (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"and would have been an illegal contribution as Crooks was under 18"

According to the FEC,

"An individual who is under 18 years old may make contributions to candidates and political committees, subject to limitations, if:

• The decision to contribute is made knowingly and voluntarily by the minor;
• The funds, goods or services contributed are owned or controlled by the minor, proceeds from a trust for which he or she is a beneficiary or funds withdrawn by the minor from a financial account opened and maintained in his or her name; and
• The contribution is not made using funds given to the minor as a gift for the purpose of making the contribution, and is not in any way controlled by another individual."

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

The 2 sources for this statement are a substack post that has corrected itself and a local Pennsylvania news website. The latter may or may not be a RS, but it's simply incorrect. Woozybydefault (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No one has demonstrated the donation didn't fit any of the exceptions noted and probably isnt of substantial amount that it would ever be brought into question. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And it does not matter whether it was illegal for those exceptions where it is illegal: after all this ks just 15$. After Biden this is toilet paper. 2A00:1370:8184:3421:DE09:E2EE:3300:21A4 (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Legality of the donation

The article currently reads "[h]is donation was made the same day Joe Biden was sworn into office and would have been an illegal contribution as Crooks was under 18" while referencing a Triblive article that doesn't discuss the legality of said donation and another on Dropsite which since added a correction stating:

"P.P.S Correction: An earlier version of this story said that the donation at the age of 17 would have been illegal. Some such donations are legal for minors to make."

quidama _talk 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

removed after dropsites correction NAADAAN (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No one has demonstrated the donation didn't fit any of the numerous exceptions noted, and, probably isnt of substantial amount that it would ever be brought into question. Basicaly, just being enough to cover processing fees. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Political party is not necessary in infobox

Besides the obviously non-neutral rationale for including this in the infobox, it is not relevant to the assassination since the current motive is unclear [1]. For instance, the article for John Wilkes Booth lists his political party in the infobox because it is relevant to his motive. While this individual is a registered Republican, there are many uncertainties regarding his political beliefs and whether those were his motives. Bedrockbob (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, when there are less uncertainties than maybe we should add it back in this Wikipedia article. Zyxrq (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth's political party wasn't relevant to his motive. In his career as an active supporter of the anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party, he had campaigned in favour of Henry Winter Davis who later became a radical Republican. By the time he assassinated Lincoln, he had converted to Catholicism showing that his views had changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism#B 2A00:23C6:E10C:3201:C84D:9D44:9CCB:9D37 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth’s affiliation with the Know-Nothing Party is relevant to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln because, unlike this instance with the president being in the same party as his would-be assassin, it helps to contextualize his motivations. Booth's nativist and pro-slavery beliefs, influenced by the Know-Nothing ideology, fueled his perception of Lincoln as an existential threat to the political values he championed. Booth’s membership in the Know-Nothing Party reflects his deep-seated nativism and possibly racist ideologies. This nativist sentiment likely extended to a strong pro-slavery stance, as the Know-Nothing Party had members who were either indifferent to slavery or actively supported it to counteract the influence of immigrant populations. Bedrockbob (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that he was registered as a republican and it has been reported by several media, it is justified to leave it there. Frankserafini87 (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Being a registered Republican is a very noisy measure, and relying on it alone risks giving undue weight. What happens in the future if it comes out that he was nonetheless a self-identified Democrat? 75.80.108.189 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We're relying on what reliable sources say. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources also contradict this registration; additionally, political party in the infobox predominantly used only on BLPs for politicians. There are a lot of people who have BLPs on wikipedia, and they’re registered as one party or the other; yet this information is not included in the infobox — why should we include it here? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Do they? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

For a couple very relevant examples, John Hinckley Jr., Lee Harvey Oswald, Arthur Bremer.

If those don't justify a political party because it wasn't relevant to their motives, then I don't see why we should include one here until we know it was relevant. Demosthanos (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no reliable source reporting his self-identified political affiliation. When you put that in the infobox, you run the risk of misleading people about this. Being a registered Republican is not considered determinative as to whether someone is a Republican. The fact that he's a registered Republican is adequately reported in the article with appropriate context. This box is, to me, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. KJKistner (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Being a registered Republican is exactly what makes someone a Republican

Cutelyaware (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm a registered Republican so I can have a vote in my state, but that's a technicality due to the closed primary nature of the system here. If I don't register Republican I don't realistically get a say in who represents us at all.

Voter registration records in closed primary states reflect which primary someone wants to participate in, that is all. Demosthanos (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone who voted for Nikky found 2A00:1370:8184:3421:DE09:E2EE:3300:21A4 (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears several editors disagree to it’s inclusion. I’m making a WP:BOLD edit and removing it. I suggest editors seek to find consensus for it in the infobox before reintroducing per WP:ONUS. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm making a bolder edit and reverting. The onus is on you to prove the sources contradict it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaaaand reverting myself because I don't want to sound contrarian. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It ended up re-re-reverted. I appreciated you backing out, because the issue at hand isn't whether the sources contradict it, the issue is whether we know it's relevant enough to go into the infobox or if featuring it prominently violates WP:NPOV. As I linked in another comment, many assassins and would-be assassins in the US don't reference their political party because it wasn't relevant. Demosthanos (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not going to get into an edit war over a WP:NPOV violation, but the editors reintroducing this are not new to wikipedia, they know better, and they know what WP:ONUS means. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

They're also wrong to do it, and not being new is irrelevant. Everyone here has a political slant of some kind and what I'm trying to do here is avoid having Wikipedia include information highlighted in the sidebar just because it's true.

John Hinckley Jr., Lee Harvey Oswald, and Arthur Bremer all lack a party affiliation in the sidebar. Placing it there brings that fact out of other context like the fact that he donated to other causes, giving a WP:POV. Demosthanos (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not opposed to you removing it, but the odds are someone will just add it again. Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like locking doesn't actually work to force people to have a reasonable discussion on the talk page before getting into and winning edit wars. Demosthanos (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The page was mostly protected because of vandalism and unsourced additions by anonymous/new users. The page is subject to WP:CTOPS but there aren't actually any Arbitration Remedies in effect so I believe WP:1RR doesn't actually apply. Not entirely sure though. C F A 💬 02:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

PA is a closed primary state, so he registered as a Republican in order to vote against Trump in the Republican primary elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.110 (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to include his political party affiliation - either in the infobox or the article - at this time, per WP:BREAKING and WP:BDP. When the dust settles, that can be discussed/added if/when his affiliation is relevant and confirmed. But as of now, the only information is speculation from people trying to get their 15 minutes of fame by talking to media, and of his registration for a primary that doesn't necessarily mean he affiliates with that party at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@TheXuitts:, please discuss and get consensus here instead of reverting without an edit summary. Some1 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

there's also nothing to say there isn't any way the attribution isnt erronious. He's only been able to vote for ~one midterm and this much demonstrates he could be have just thought it was meaningless. While not probative of which partisan hacks he approved of best, some uncertainty exists for why he was supposedly a "registered republican." In some states or maybe all of them im not sure, you have to be a registered republican to vote in the primary. It's not open to the unaffiliated. Just this much could be the sole motive for why he was registered republican and donating democrat. For all anyone really knows at this point he could be an anti-partisan such as my self and he could be acting under my personal advice, or yours, or anyone elses. Or even much more likely, made to look like it. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Political party in the infobox

Should the infobox list Crooks's political party as Republican? Example 00:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes

• Weak yes - I have chosen to !vote yes primarily because reliable sources have emphasized Crooks' party registration in their coverage of him (it was one of the first things reported about him actually) and because shooting a political figure is more or less, though not necessarily, political, and it should be noted that this is subject to change as the investigation unravels. For example, I don't think whatever party John Hinckley Jr.'s party registration was (if any) would be infobox relevant because he shot Reagan for a non-political reason. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says to summarize "the key facts that appear in an article" but also to "exclude unnecessary content." At this time, I do believe Crooks being a registered Republican is a "key fact" based on the emphasis of this fact in most reliable sources. But, if it is declared by investigators and reliable sources that Crooks had no apparent political motivation for shooting Trump, it may become an unnecessary fact because the political affiliations of shooters and criminals who act without political motivations are typically not particularly relevant and thus are not subject to infobox inclusion. R. G. Checkers ^talk 00:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, our reliable sources have talked at length about the registration of Crooks as a Republican. As an infobox is a summary of article contents, this is a valid item to include given the breadth and quality of sources stating it. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - we assign weight to information based on the weight given to that information by reliable sources, not what we feel is important. Crooks' Republican membership has been a focus of most of the reporting about him. Omitting it violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is not about whether to record any political links, activity or affiliations in the article, it is whether his status as a registered Republican voter is recorded in the infobox. I say yes to the former, but no to the latter as the link is too tenuous. Pincrete (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think you (and others who have said similar things) are right - it is fact that he was a registered Republican but it's also complicated, and distilling that all down to "Republican" in the infobox is inaccurate enough to be misleading. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - It has been established that he was a registered Republican, a fact prominently mentioned in several reliable media sources. Omitting this from the infobox would seem odd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankserafini87 (talk • contribs)

No

• No—Every media source identifies his party registration but immediately follows it with the single political donation he's made, which is to a progressive cause. There is no way for that context to be included in the infobox, and highlighting the party alone without that context is slanting the perspective of Wikipedia relative to what the sources actually say. It's better for the information to be included in the body in the same format as the sources, with the full context, rather than making the party registration seem more important than the donation (which, again, the sources don't do, they give both equal weight). Demosthanos (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• No Not really needed in the infobox at all even if there is a reliable source, and people can change their political views over time. Not everyone who is registered to that party votes for them.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• No The current state of the evidence makes it unclear as to the extent of Crook’s affiliation with the Republican Party. As per the comment above by Demosthanos, including Republican registration in the summary box is misleading when presented without context. Given that the voting registration of other assassins is (correctly) not listed in their summary information, it is unusual to list that information here. Including party information in the summary box is therefore unusual and misleading. Summary box information in a biography should also be a summary of the person’s life. If this were the bio of the chairman of the RNC, then party affiliation would be a demonstrably significant part of his biography. But it’s not, and it isn’t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickArgall (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• No - per MOS:INFOBOX The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. … The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Some infoboxes need to use more than a handful of fields, but information should be presented in a short format, wherever possible, and exclude unnecessary content —- There are a limited number of reasons for an infobox to have a political party listed and that’s when a subject’s political party would be of interest to readers. The subject of this article is not a politician and thus far reliable sources have only stated that he had registered as a republican; which is not the same as stated he was widely regarded or self-identified as one. And even if they did, it’s not clear how this individuals political affiliations have enough WP:WEIGHT to include in an infobox. I also want to be clear, if he had self identified or registered as a Democrat I would have the same viewpoint. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• No Not needed in an info box and it is unclear how strong Mr. Crooks’ affiliation with the Republicans was. Anyone can register as a Democrat or a Republican but it really doesn’t mean much. Frank Anchor 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• No In addition to above arguments, a single line in an infobox cannot capture the seemingly contradictory nature of Crooks' political beliefs. Readers solely reading the infobox and leaving (as is the infoboxen purpose), would be misled instead of informed. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• No or certainly, not yet. The extent of his affiliation, and whether his affiliation is relevant to the shooting is not yet clear. Every media source identifies his party registration but immediately follows it with the single political donation he's made, which is to a progressive cause. There is no way for that context to be included in the infobox, and highlighting the party alone without that context is slanting the perspective of Wikipedia relative to what the sources actually say. per Demosthanos.Pincrete (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• No, seems to be a contentious fact.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• No until motive determined, Creates the potential for readers to misinterpret the inclusion of Crooks's party affiliation as an implicit suggestion that his political registration had a direct influence on his actions. This might perpetuate a misleading narrative, especially if the motivations behind the incident remain unclear or non-political. Bedrockbob (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• No, Assuming this is fact, it doesn't tell us enough about him.It only means at some point in his brief life he was registered as a Republican. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• No, not yet, because it is currently unclear whether this is a key fact. Senorangel (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• No per Ca. The subject evidently had complicated political affiliations, and while part of that picture is that he was a registered Republican, having that one word in the infobox doesn't effectively summarize all of the information available. It should be omitted from the infobox and discussed in detail in the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• No - Ivan and others have summarized my views very concisely. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• No (changed !vote from Yes) - It's not clear his party registration, which I agree is not necessarily always indicative of what party one really leans too, has yet to be established as significant. It also creates a NPOV concern because he's also contributed to Democrats and that fact appears to be as significant in reliable sources as his party registration; so, including his party without a clear way of conveying the donation would be undue emphasis. R. G. Checkers ^talk 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a lot of nuance to party registration at the state level in the United States. This is discussed in various forums, but essentially there are situations where Democrats will sometimes register as Republican during midterms (and vice-versa) to vote in a primary to disrupt the opposing parties nomination. In general elections, individuals are not required to vote for the candidate in their registered party. You can learn more about this unique characteristic of US and state voting laws at https://www.usa.gov/voting-political-party.

Given how this system works, party registration alone can not be reliably used to determine an individuals political affiliation; since there is no way to know which party they voted for in the general election. It does not matter how many WP:RS report this registration; unless there is other reliable reporting that significantly articulates his political affiliation (as is common with politicians or other notable state officials). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be considered a "Suspected shooter"?

Yes, he should be! There won't be a trial, so the wait to say "shooter" won't be long, but it is too early to say with certainty. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

did the wind shoot the bullet? it’s pretty cut and dry Nightmarejessie (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like an argument for the FBI and the Secret Service. BarntToust (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I really have to alter rhetoric regarding the politically charged "shooter" as opposed to the literal definition of someone who attempts to kill a politician, assassin. The business of assassination is so innately insidious assassin is used for this purpose. Regardless of levels of competence, assassin is the appropriate word and every where "shooter" is used instead suggests political spin and bias. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

'Shooter' is brief and factual. 'Would-be assasin' 'Perpetrator of attempted assassination' etc are all long-winded, clumsy and rely on the probability, but not certainty, that he sought to kill Trump. Pincrete (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

What if Thomas Mathew Crooks was suicidal; and, expected to be shot after his first round? Did his first round strike victims? What if his intention was not to kill, but injure? Was he a "good shot" or a "bad shot"? (gun club records?) Did he intend to shoot anyone? Nobody will know his intention; unless, a note/message is found and authenticated. FACTS do not change; but, Opinions do. 174.240.64.98 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"Shooter" is brief and Factual. 174.240.64.98 (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Political views

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.

---

It's odd that this section starts with the views of his parents, rather than information about Thomas Matthew Crooks himself. The information about his parents should be moved after information about registration and contributions. Katealamode (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

CNN cites state records as the source of information about the parents' political registration (https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/us/trump-rally-gunman-thomas-crooks-invs/index.html). I also found an inaccuracy: the politician described the Bethel park area as a "large spattering", not the family.

Please change:

According to a local politician who met Crooks's parents while canvassing, his mother was a Democrat and his father a Libertarian. The politician described the family as a "large spattering of different backgrounds and ideals".[6]

Crooks was a registered Republican,[1][2][4][3] and his voter registration was active since September 2021, the month he turned 18.[1] A former classmate of Crooks described him as "slightly right leaning".[6] Officials say he had only voted in the 2022 midterm elections.[7]

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, an organization dedicated to improving turnout among Democratic Party voters.[9][11][3][21] His donation was made the same day Joe Biden was sworn into office.[8][22] According to the Progressive Turnout Project, he made the donation in response to an e-mail about "tuning into" the inauguration and was unsubscribed from the group's mailing list in 2022.[22][7]

Change to:

Crooks was a registered Republican,[1][2][4][3] and his voter registration was active since September 2021, the month he turned 18.[1] A former classmate of Crooks described him as "slightly right leaning".[6] Officials say he had only voted in the 2022 midterm elections.[7]

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, an organization dedicated to improving turnout among Democratic Party voters.[9][11][3][21] His donation was made the same day Joe Biden was sworn into office.[8][22] According to the Progressive Turnout Project, he made the donation in response to an e-mail about "tuning into" the inauguration and was unsubscribed from the group's mailing list in 2022.[22][7]

Crooks's father is a registered Libertarian and his mother is a registered Democrat.[7] According to a local politician who met Crooks's parents while canvassing, the family's political mix is "fairly typical" for the Bethel Park area.[6] Katealamode (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: Reordered the section so that his political views come before those of his parents. C F A 💬 20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The information about his parents is a BLP privacy issue and shouldn't included. Please remove it if it is re-added. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It's also a misquote. The source states that a single, unnamed classmate said that he "seemed" (meaning that he's not sure) "slightly right leaning". That's vague and amorphous enough to mean almost anything. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and we should definitely not engage in speculation of him being conservative, liberal, socialist, or fascist until more information is given. KlayCax (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

While parents are certainly less influential than everyone else in a child's upbringing in todays society, it is something that can be cited and should be cited. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:31, 15 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.

It reads like he shot the president

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.

---

Currently the article says "Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to assassinate ... the 45th president of the United States", but this doesn't make clear that he did not shoot the president. I appreciate the USA sometimes blurs the lines with their Mr. President, Secret Service, and so on, but shooting a president is still different to shooting a former/candidate, president. The difference in consequences is huge. I can't currently think of a clean and timeless way of clarifying this, so at this time I'll just leave this explanation in case I do change it, or suggest someone else have a go. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Change to “45th president and presidential candidate”? The changes may be wordy. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the obvious choice would be to change it to "former President". QuicoleJR (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Some reports indicate that he didn't actually hit trump at all. That only the blowby blew his eardrum. This detail is unclear and crucial to delineate. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:36, 15 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.

Trump not shot, hit by flying glass

multiple sources quoting secret service that Trump was not shot but nicked by flying glass from a teleprompter that was shot 108.218.143.27 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Many independent, reliable sources are still reporting that he was shot. Wikipedia follows what secondary sources say, whether or not it's true. As to whether it is true, you might be interested in reading this NYT analysis. C F A 💬 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Honestly, the guideline needs to be renamed. It should be titled Verifiability, not opinion, as it would be quite eyebrow-raising for an encyclopedia to reject the idea of an objective truth. We do want the truth, we don't want conjecture and non-expert speculation marketed as the truth. Bremps... 00:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
    • There's a lot of history behind that page, including but not limited to an entire movement some years ago to replace verifiability with something else entirely. A lot of what you see there is a reaction to common situations in the early years of Wikipedia, and one really needs to know a fair amount of Wikipedia history to fully understand what it is getting at. "Verifiable and true" is the best explanation that came out of the decades-long discussions of this. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Actually, we want Wikipedia to contain things that are both verifiable and true. So if there's evidence that something verifiable is not, in fact, true it should not be in Wikipedia. (There are plenty of occasions where editors have wrongly used outdated sources, alas, and considered their reliability in a vacuum without the context that what they say has since been shown to be false.) However, in this case the converse is the case. It is the early claim about the teleprompter glass that has since been widely debunked. A quick search turned up https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/early-claims-trump-hit-by-glass-fragments-undermined-by-new-york-times-photos/ar-BB1pWfYf as the first match, but there were plenty of others. The teleprompter glass claim may be verifiable by some sources, but it is untrue and so does not belong here. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
• Sources reported its possibility initially. Not relevant now. NYT article good. I encourage this IP questioner to create an account here, though. BarntToust (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is currently unclear if trump was even hit at all. Some reports even make the claim he wasn't hit by anything at all and it was just the blowby of the bullet rupturing his eardrum. I've even seen a picture where the bullet was caught on camera and there was no vaporised blood or flesh to be seen along with it. Note for whatever reason this tab would not open and i had to enter the edit function to leave this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100e:b072:1d1:10c:7e84:5a43:7249 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"Political views" doesn't describe his views

The "Political views" section merely notes his party registration and then some minor donations through channels associated with the opposing political party. Neither of these provide any insight to his political "views". If any of this is even insightful at all, the section should be titled "Political activity" or something like that. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

None of this adoxography about his local shooting club, his $15 donations, and the shirt he was wearing belongs on Wikipedia but there will be no chance any removal won't be immediately restored by votaries. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I decided to WP:BOLD and removed the gun range mention (not inherently an expression of a political view) and changed the section to "activities". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

what if this is true x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897?s=46&t=8ldZzn0DJKAF9TZnsepjyw 2603:6011:9600:52C0:E087:EC8A:C8EE:532B (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Twitter isn't a reliable source. It doesn't matter what is posted on twitter. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Sustained 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"Southern Gospel" site claim of his parents' ethnicity

I would avoid using this source, it looks like possible pink-slime journalism or AI, or else a minor site without a proper news org backing it up. The article cited to claim this cited random Twitter accounts and unspecified "reports". VintageVernacular (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly it doesn't really prove that he's Jewish. Just says that he is with no evidence. He's from bethel park. A mostly christian town with no synagogues Thunderbolt4000 (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that it said so but with obvious disclaimer. This isnt the type of article that should have reclessly omitted content. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The best way to counter this might be to find a source that gives his religion or that of his parents? Htrowsle (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

His grandfather was Lutheran no Judaism at all.

https://www.neelyfuneralhome.com/obituary/Norman-Crooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.83.109 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Clothing brand of perpetrator

Does the shirt brand of the perpetrator (in this case, a gun YouTuber) need to be specifically mentioned? Has any reliable source made a connection between the shirt and the act? Much is unclear about affiliations and this seem biased and could needlessly cause backlash against an unrelated third party. This was decided against on the article Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump talk page. Joellaser (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• I agree. Why mention it? It serves no purpose other to defame a YouTuber who had no involvement in this. Take it down. 32.220.216.27 (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • And I did. I removed the mention of the channel for now. Might remove the rest of the sentence later. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed it. That kind of information does not belong on Wikipedia. If a reliable secondary source summarises his interest in the brand and makes a connection to the incident, then it would be appropriate. Otherwise it's as informative as what he ate for breakfast on the day. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this discussion, but I think the clothing is relevant and worth including. It is pertinent information, particularly as much of the focus will inevitably be on US gun control laws and gun culture in the aftermath of this event. The fact he performed this act in "pro-gun" attire seems relevant enough that it's discussed in a number of reliable sources (BBC, NYT, Telegraph, Sky News, Newsweek, Washington Times, etc.) all of which are referenced in the article. It is also included in the main article, attempted assassination of Donald Trump. It should stay. GhostOfNoMeme 10:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. This isnt the type of aticle that should omitt any details at all. It's relivance could be used prejudicialy as any content could. It could also be used excessively such as to show evidence the assassin had planned on being found with it. Or it could even had been used by the assassin just to blend in better. Assassination 101 use a disguise. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Those are both bad arguments, when it comes to Wikipedia. A good argument, however, is that the reliable sources use weasel wording, and the usual journalistic get-outs, to cover for claims that are possibly not in fact accurate. For example, an early NBC report, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/live-blog/trump-biden-rnc-election-live-updates-rcna161404/rcrd45880, said "appear to" and "partly obscured". The Associated Press at https://apnews.com/article/trump-assassination-attempt-thomas-matthew-crooks-shooter-881581c46c07025898027143fc9132e5 currently also says, datelined about an hour before I am writing this, "appear to". We could write the article to say "appeared to be" (as it currently does, note, although that hides who it is who looked at the photographs and judged the appearance). But we could also hold to the standard of waiting until someone who has seen more than photographs of a "partly obscured" thing to tell us with confidence and no weaselling what the shirt is. Uncle G (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, yours is a sensible argument for altering the wording (but not IMO for outright removal) — I think "appeared to show" may be the most suitable wording for the article. However I also somewhat doubt the language used by most sources is going to change. I don't think "appears to" in this instance relates to uncertainty on the part of journalists, but is simply the appropriate construction for describing clothing after having reviewed photographs. Considering the number of reliable sources covering the clothing (including a number of articles dedicated solely to it) it is absolutely worth keeping, in my view, as a piece of information clearly considered relevant by a majority of sources covering Crooks. But yeah — the wording may benefit from a tweak. GhostOfNoMeme 11:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

GhostOfNoMeme, looking at the five references at the end of that sentence talking about the t-shirt, three of the sources Sky News, BBC and Associated Press don't even mention a t-shirt at all. The Telegraph article briefly mentions it, but is not dedicated solely to it, so that leaves WP:NEWSWEEK, which goes into more detail about Matt Carriker, than it does Crooks.

In my view, this is a clear example of WP:RECENTISM, an editor reads something and thinks it should be included in the article, without actually knowing if the info is really that relevant, notable or significant. And the justification for inclusion is always, welp, reliable sources are reporting it, so we must report it too. Just because something can be sourced, doesn't automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion. Is the brand of his t-shirt, or his shorts or his shoes relevant, it's highly unlikely that his choice of a t-shirt would pass the WP:10YEARTEST. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated the Sky News reference to the correct page. The other two – BBC and AP - do clearly mention the t-shirt (you linked the archival pages; perhaps they ought to be updated?). Personally, I'm still of the opinion it merits inclusion, but perhaps I'm in the minority with this. GhostOfNoMeme 13:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to mention the exact name of the brand. The sources do this and evidently believe it is part of the information to be given to the public. Mhorg (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the correct links, yes I see there is a brief mention in both of those articles. Time will tell if it will still be suitable for inclusion if his choice of clothing receives sustained coverage. But to me, right now, it just looks like WP:RSBREAKING, which is always a problem with these types of articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sportsmen's club membership

Twice now I've removed mention that he was a member of a local sportmen's club, which includes a shooting range. Membership does not imply anything. Unless someone has a RS showing that something about him being a member here is directly related to the shooting, it is trivia. If we want to include in a "Personal life" section perhaps, but not where it's been included thus far. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's probative to mention where the assassin may have aquired the skill level they had or didn't have. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"may have aquired" is speculative original research. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Is television commercial appearance notable?

"He is featured in a 2023 advertisement for BlackRock, an investment firm, that was filmed at his high school." [12] -> CNN "What we know page"

I can sort of see an argument for both sides

but I also pretty much guarantee its gonna be a talking point on A. Jones' show by end of this week if it stays in the article (maybe also if it doesn't, but yeah) Donald Guy (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Was added by CFA in this rev Donald Guy (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It was requested in an edit request. Seems reasonably notable, is mentioned in the source. I see no issue with it. C F A 💬 02:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

would you be willing to provide a rationale for its notability? (ideally beyond that it appeared in a perennial source?)

because from where i sit it seems as much trivia as the sports club membership point discussed above, if not moreso. It is notable insofar as there is little information in general, but i very much doubt it will be on this article (or the section merged into the event main article) in months or years once more is known

my concern is that the request for inclusion (by an anonymous user at that) may be ill-intentioned, as BlackRock is a not an infrequently mentioned player in New World Order type conspiracy theories (separate from any legitimate concerns about BlackRock as a market manipulator, etc.)

as such, the inclusion in the article seems likely to be read that way (i.e. as a dog whistle of being involved in a grand conspiracy) by some, and is trivia of little relevance to the rest. inclusion may operate in effect as misinformation

so in the absence of evidence that his participation in the commercial was related in any way to the events which have made him notable, and whereas he was not an actor or marketing professional (and notable for these reasons), I'd equally request its removal Donald Guy (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well the threshold for notability is usually that it is discussed in independent reliable, sources. This has been mentioned (and sometimes featured as an independent article) in many reliable sources. There is the CNN article in the article, this NYT article, this article in Fortune, this article in Times Now and many mentions in other articles. The ad was pulled because the gunman was featured. This is clearly notable for inclusion somewhere, and one sentence seems like due weight here. We need to assume good faith and saying a user suggested its inclusion to promote conspiracy theories is not doing so. They probably just saw it while reading an article or watching the news. It is not an obscure fact by any stretch of the word. C F A 💬 03:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I (will) still worry about its potential to act as misinformation-in-effect (and I still fully anticipate its eventual removal on grounds of lacking relevance),

but certainly the fact of the event of the pulling of a still running ad, as a feature of the aftermath of the shooting (in a similar vein to the Biden campaign suspending ads) is definitely a more reasonable frame of notability (though if pressed I'd say more in the article on the event than the person).

Could you/someone please rephrase to something closer to framing/emphasis of those headlines regarding the focus of the story (the removal of the ad):

• "BlackRock removes an ad from 2022 that included images of the gunman." (NYT)

(also 2022 or 2023?)

• "BlackRock says gunman from Trump rally briefly appeared in an ad for the top money manager and was unpaid" (Fortune)

Because as it reads now, with emphasis/inclusion only on his participation in the ad, it seems as easy for a bad faith or misinformed actor to read as "the shooter was influenced/directed by BlackRock [a known arm of the nefarious globalist cabal]" as to convey the notable information Donald Guy (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Erledigt: I've updated the wording. C F A 💬 03:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Seconding decision to add. Seems notable, especially for someone who was pretty off the radar prior to the Assassination attempt. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This data seems extremely relevant as "blackrock" is deeply regarded by political activists and has an unparalleled influential capacity to insidiously influence some 'would be hero.' 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Not authorized to access facility

This might fall afoul of WP:NOR (or just WP:RSPX) since as far as I know it was only published on twitter, but in the interest of contributing something rather than just being a non-inclusionist:

Robert Evans (journalist) spoke with a source who is an employee at the facility whose roof TMC was killed on who confirmed that he was not known to him nor someone authorized to access the facility:

https://x.com/IwriteOK/status/1812567674914009160

that might simply follow as an assumption from other information in the article, but also might be reasonable to clarify

(other information from their correspondence regarding secret service and police (non-)activity at the facility might also be [more] worthy of inclusion in the event article, but is apt to have the same sourcing issue) Donald Guy (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"I probably had seen him wear a Trump shirt"

How can "probably" be used as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Any port in a storm. 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 2600:4040:58DC:D200:F873:7F90:8BC6:F846 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it EvergreenFir (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

A quote is a quote is a quote. If someone said it and it was reported, it's innately probative. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Source suggestion / (more) classmate accounts regarding political leanings

(It does not appear there is a specific consensus on reliability of The Philadelphia Inquirer but I take from its inclusion in Category:Pulitzer Prize-winning newspapers that its probably fine):

this article has some reporting / interviews regarding the subject of his political views pre-2021:

https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/thomas-matthew-crooks-trump-shooting-bethel-park-20240714.html Donald Guy (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

In particular this passage:

"

Sigafoos did not recall Crooks making political overtures in class, but rather as someone interested in how government works, and “not trying to insert his own beliefs into it.&

Another former classmate did not share this view.

Max R. Smith recalled taking an American history course with Crooks as a sophomore. He did recall Crooks making political statements — but they shed no light on his actions Saturday.

“He definitely was conservative,” he said. “It makes me wonder why he would carry out an assassination attempt on the conservative candidate.”

Smith recalled a mock debate in which their history professor posed government policy questions and asked students to stand on one side of the classroom or the other to signal their support or opposition for a given proposal.

“The majority of the class were on the liberal side, but Tom, no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side,” Smith said. “That’s still the picture I have of him. Just standing alone on one side while the rest of the class was on the other."

”

Donald Guy (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely something we should wait for, @Donald Guy:. It's very possible he started off as right-wing and then changed his opinion over time. There's stories of people from going from like Groypers to communists and liberals to fascists. It would be wrong to list his political ideology in the lead unless there's widespread reports or a direct confirmation that it was his motivation.

For instance, Reagan was shot because an insane dude was obsessed with Jodie Foster. Maybe Crooks had mental issues, maybe he was radicalized over time, we just don't know.

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and there's no need to rush. Particularly on an article such as this. KlayCax (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean i'm not pushing for anything, just offering it as a reliable source that doesn't seem to be utilized as yet

but I also disagree with your implication of irrelevance in view of possible change of views (as a type of recency bias). I think that if some sort of radicalization took place in the final months or years of his life, what his "starting point" was remains quite relevant (especially in terms of whether the understood psychology was more like "zeal of the newly converted" or "reality tunneling" against a lifelong foundation) Donald Guy (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

if indeed his motivations are somehow later discovered to have also been apolitical/based fully in delusion, than I guess I'll agree it wasn't relevant, but right now that isn't the occam's razer assumption being applied either by the world or indeed the content of this article as it currently exists Donald Guy (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We do not assume what will be determined in the future, and for recently deceased persons (and living persons, for that matter) we do not speculate, and we only report what is certain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly right. Sources (including classmates!) can't agree on whether he's right, left, centrist, or apolitical. No claim should be in the article until it's verified.

We could easily be spreading false information + at most, we're just going by what classmates state, which is a low-quality source at best. KlayCax (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again, speculation is being added into the article, @Berchanhimez:. There's absolutely no certainty on whether his politics were right or left-leaning when he did it.

Nor, is there clear evidence of his motivations. Most political assassinations have had little to do with politics itself. This is even more so when it's been widely reported that he's a loner.

Vague comments from one single unidentified classmate - on an article like this, again - is exactly what we should not be doing. KlayCax (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

His (possible) evolving political ideology & possible radicalization definitely is notable. But we should wait. We're still in a "fog of uncertainty" and a lot of early stuff surrounding cases like this is later shown to be false.

Indisputable facts, such as his registration status as a Republican and donations, are the only thing that seems WP: DUE for now.

There's also been widespread reports that he was a loner. So perhaps, for instance, he saw it as a means of getting attention & spread chaos in a world that he saw fail him. KlayCax (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Elspea756:. The claim wasn't from the Hindustan Times. It was from CNN. Classmates and reliable sources have given contradictory claims about his political views. It's massively WP: TOOSOON to claim that he was conservative. CNN states that there's strong evidence that "suggests he may have had divergent political leanings". Giving contradicting accounts from classmates (including those who claim he was "center-left", "centrist", "slightly right-leaning", and "definitely conservative") is the last thing we should do. Note that this page is probably going to be viewed by millions of people and there's a good chance that this information is completely inaccurate.

(As @Berchanhimez: noted.) KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, KlayCax, you removed sourced information that was sourced to The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer, and your edit summary included a link to https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/donald-trump-rally-shooter-thomas-crooks-familys-first-reaction-what-the-hell-is-101721006160628.html so according to your edit summary your claim seems to be definitely related to hindustantimes.com Your new suggestion that the sourced quotes from The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer have a "good chance" to be "completely inaccurate" seems to be unsupported by anything other than your own personal opinion. Do you have a source for your claims? Elspea756 (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hindustan Times is quoting CNN there. I was quoting it to get around the paywall. The problem with including it is that various classmates have variously described him as a hardcore conservative, center-leftist, centrist, slightly right of center, and apolitical during this interactions with him. That's entirely consistent with CNN's observation where they go on to note that it appears that "a review of public records suggests he may have had divergent political leanings" throughout his lifetime. Classmates also report that he was "socially awkward, nerdy, and frequently bullied throughout high school". Again, most political assassins are not motivated by politics, and there's been a widespread consensus among media sources that individuals shouldn't go jumping for what random classmates, initial reporting, and contradicting reports state, but wait for reliable sources to make a definite determination about what happened.

The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer are just reporting what several of the aforementioned students said. Not that he was. Massive difference. KlayCax (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This should be removed until a consensus is reached or a RFC is concluded. Tagging involved editors @Some1:, @TheXuitts:, @Elspea756:, @ZimZalaBim:.

Could you self-revert for now? KlayCax (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What is it that you would like me to self-revert? (I don't believe I'm involved in this discussion.) Some1 (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Tagged you to prevent WP: CANVASS, @Some1:, but this paragraph One of Crooks's classmates estimated Crooks's political views as "slightly right-leaning". Another of Crooks's classmates said Crooks "definitely was conservative" and "no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side." that has been inserted into the article multiple times and then removed (including by me) and reinstated without consensus.

CNN notes that: a review of public records suggests he may have had divergent political leanings and that it seems likely that Crooks expressed contradicting, and diverging, political leanings in his life. The only consistent agreement among sources is that he was a "loner" who was "frequently bullied at school". Despite common perception, it is generally the case that political assassinations have nothing to do with politics at all, and despite the widespread speculation at the moment, this seems like a very plausible situation. Classmates - as mentioned above - have described him as taking various, seemingly contradicting stances (from being a hardcore conservative to center-left throughout his high school years. Many allege he wasn't political at all. There's no way to properly WP: WEIGHT this. A paragraph such as this is egregious considering that we're in the "fog of confusion" common in situations like this. Very little about his political leanings outside of hard facts, his registered political party and donations, should be mentioned for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax, when you write that it is generally the case that political assassinations have nothing to do with politics at all, that is belied in US history by successful assassins John Wilkes Booth who was motivated by his allegiance to the Confederate States of America, and by Lee Harvey Oswald who considered himself a revolutionary communist who supported the Soviet Union and Castro's Cuba, and by Leon Czolgosz who killed William McKinley and was clearly motivated by anarchist political ideology. Sarah Jane Moore was motivated by New Left ideology. Lynette Fromm was motivated by extremist counterculture political ideology. When Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola attempted to assassinate Harry Truman in 1950, their motivation was Puerto Rican nationalism. We do not yet understand the motivation in this case, but your general comment is not supported by the facts, and downplaying the potential for a political motivation seems premature. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

A majority. Not a minority. It's obviously still possible that the shooter was motivated by politics. KlayCax (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about revising the paragraph to say:

Some of Crooks's classmates stated that his political views were "slightly right-leaning" or "conservative"; one classmate remembered Crooks as being "not obviously political"; CNN noted that "a review of public records suggests he may have had divergent political leanings."

Though if what his classmates say are insignificant, the paragraph could be removed per WP:ONUS, and people can start an RfC regarding it. Some1 (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The CNN report is the only one I can see as meeting the criteria of WP: DUE. But even that openly admits it is speculation. It is however a "high-criteria source" than what random classmates of his said. All of which have given contradicting answers that suggests that his political beliefs changed overtime. I think it should all be removed per WP: ONUS and WP: DUE.

Anything that suggests a political motivation (or against one) should be removed for now. Again, there's no harm in waiting, but there is in spreading incorrect information. KlayCax (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing it completely, @Some1:. Having it state that "some described him as conservative and some described him as slightly right-leaning and some described him as centrist and some described him as center-left and some described him as apolitical" is absolutely not something we should be doing. No motivation has been given by authorities and this comes across as speculation to me.

...Which is absolutely, again, not what we should be doing. KlayCax (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Most say he was a conservative, some say he didn't talk about politics. None say he was center-left. This is an unsourced claim and we've all chosen to take it as fact. Personisinsterest (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Everything in that article said he was conservative. NONE of these sources ever said anything about him being center-left or a centrist. I read all of them. Personisinsterest (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

What does "slightly right-leaning" mean in this case? What were those "government policy questions" that revealed Crooks as a conservative? There's too much subjectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There are also reports that his parents are leftists, although they bought him a gun. His small donations to leftist groups just a objective episode, the editors don't need to overreact or make excuses for him. I think Wikipedia has been too biased in favor of one side for a long time and needs improvement. Cbls1911 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me but please give a reliable source positing his parents are "leftists". There has been in everything I've seen fairly consistent reporting that his mother identifies as a democrat (a thing few self-identified "leftists" do) and that his father self-identifies as a libertarian Donald Guy (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There are three opinions here: 1 His father is a Libertarian and his mother is a Democrat. 2 His Father is a Republican and his Mother is a Democrat. 3 His parents are both Democrats. Cbls1911 (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

there does not appear to be a well-established wikipedian consensus on the matter, but I think it's reasonable to view the un-bylined reporting of Marca (newspaper), a daily sports focused tabloid from Spain, as less reliable on matters of US voter registration than local sources Donald Guy (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that some editors are politically biased. They are using vague and contradictory claims from classmates as reliable sources of information, when as discussed, they're very much not and should not be included on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The lassmates were also divided on his statement. For example, divided opinions about whether he had been bullied. In addition, some people believe that he did not publicly express his personal stance, so he did not leave a deep impression, but someone think that he stands out from others in his stance. Cbls1911 (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's really astounding there's so much interest in 'which of the two' political parties he belonged to. The whole idea that someone has to align one way or the other just sums up the intellectual laziness of people today. There's no reason to commit the perpetuation of such atrocious reasoning beyond the habits of denying "third" parties from ever gaining a substantial platform. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is all effectively WP:HEARSAY, individuals accounts of the subjects behaviors or activities years ago should have relatively little to no WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in this BLP as there is zero evidence that it bears any relevance to what he's notable for. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Whether you personally consider the comments hearsay doesn't really matter as long as news sources deemed credible by Wikipedia do find those same comments credible enough to cite.

It's outside the scope of a Wiki editor to determine what content in a cited article is true. Ereb0r (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• The political views of a political assassin are certainly important, but indeed, there is no definitive information at this point except that he was a registered Republican [2]. So that can be included. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the paragraph about Crook's conservative views is still on the page is a clear and disgusting example of political bias from the editors. As stated several times before, reports of Crook's political views (along with if he was bullied or not) are inconsistent. There's also the fact that he could easily change his political views during or after High School. The only things that should be listed with his political activity is his registration and his donation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I have removed that sentence. Some1 (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Would there be a problem to sum up the content of Thomas_Matthew_Crooks#Political_activities in one sentence in the introduction? --KnightMove (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Political Parties of Parents Relevancy

Are the political parties of parents relevant? Not much is known about the actual political beliefs of Crooks so I think the section should be much less filled than it is currently. R8cobra (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless it had a major effect on his own personal political stance (which right now is still up for heavy debate), I don't think it should be included as it would be excess and irrelevant. If it doesn't tie in to Crooks, then don't include it. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sir MemeGod Agreed, I am cautious to make the edit myself as this article is red hot with reverts but I would support an edit by someone willing to do so. R8cobra (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP: ONUS controversial changes need consensus to be inserted. One of Crooks's classmates estimated Crooks's political views as "slightly right-leaning".[disputed – discuss] Another of Crooks's classmates said Crooks "definitely was conservative" and "no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side."[disputed – discuss] was also added in over multiple editor's discussions.

If a consensus can't be reached then this is a RFC situation. KlayCax (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And I don't think the political parties of his parents are relevant unless something comes out. I agree with removing that + the aforementioned paragraph. KlayCax (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:BLPN about this. Info on the parents should not be included per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPPRIVACY EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir There appears then at this point to be an unanimous consensus against the information being included and this is supported by the above WP references so I will make the edit to remove the information. R8cobra (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually I will not be doing that as I do not have 500 edits. R8cobra (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would, but am going to wait until this discussion reaches a consensus. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

While parents today are far less influential than in previous years, i see no reason why it would be completely irrelevant. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. And this is not a trial where editors determine what information is relevant. Relevant to what? What made him try to kill the U.S. president? What policy or guideline supports that? All that matters is the extent of coverage in rs. TFD (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Weapon

Someone have the exact weapon model ? The infobox only contain the style/type. 74.15.150.131 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@74.15.150.131 Nothing that I can find as of early July 15th 2024. R8cobra (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely zip. I cant even find if the assasin was working on steel sights or optics. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.laprensa.hn/mundo/fusil-thomas-crooks-disparar-trump-comprado-legalmente-padre-pensilvania-estados-unidos-EH20361544 (This image is solely on the weapon, no deceased people are in the photos. But having seen the "wider" photo I believe that this is legit)

While the image is extremely blurry, I would say that it was some kind of red dot. I am basing this off my own AR-15 with a red dot and the position of the sight on the rifle. (A longer "box" on top of the rifle would indicate a scope, and the box on top of the rifle at the rear of the weapon would indicate some kind of prism optic.)

Obviously not enough to make an edit, but enough to satisfy personal curiosity. 2601:47:4900:E4D0:6545:748A:4D18:B30D (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what "tuning into" means in this context?

Per the CNN source:

A spokesperson for Progressive Turnout Project said in an email that the group had received the donation “in response to an email about tuning into the inauguration” and that “the email address associated with the contribution only made the one contribution and was unsubscribed from our lists 2 years ago.”

__

Is it possible that he paid $15 to watch a stream of the inauguration, or something to that effect? If anyone is subscribed to their mailing list can you please check for that email on the day of his inauguration? 2601:243:C004:F790:4917:A3F:CE28:C2FF (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You are asking Wikipedia editors to perform journalistic legwork, finding out stuff firsthand. The right thing here is to go to CNN's comments section, or use whatever contact mechanisms there are for the people in the byline, and ask the authors of CNN's piece what "tuning into the inauguration" means. The proper people to do the journalistic legwork are the journalists themselves. I suspect that you'll find that they've quoted their source directly because they do not know what the source was saying, either. ☺ But they really should have followed up with their source on what "tuning into" means in the 2020s. Uncle G (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been able to locate any reliable sources that discuss the precise contents of the email. I did find an article on Drop Site News with the author sharing an email he received around the time of the inauguration from the same organisation: source. Some dubious sources have claimed this is the email he received; I have my doubts, but regardless, we must wait for reporting from reliable sources. GhostOfNoMeme 06:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

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.

---

I believe that classmates discussion about Thomas Matthew Crooks should be considered hearsay. They are inconsistent, as some say he was only slight right-wing while others say he was defiantly conservative. Some accounts even say he was apolitical. Even so, the bar of what's considered "right-wing" and "conservative" differs from person to person.

As such, I believe that the only things that should be in the Political Activity section are: "Crooks was a registered Republican, and his voter registration was active since September 2021, the month he turned 18. Officials say he had only voted in the 2022 midterm elections.

"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 Joe Biden was sworn into office. According to the Progressive Turnout Project, he made the donation in response to an e-mail about "tuning into" the inauguration and was unsubscribed from the group's mailing list in 2022." 156.146.74.135 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• You are duplicating a discussion about contradictions already being had at #Source suggestion / (more) classmate accounts regarding political leanings. Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As noted there is already a discussion about this further up the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:40, 15 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 (2)

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.

---

Please change "On January 20, 2021, at the age of 17, he donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a leftist voter turnout group, through the Democratic Party donation platform ActBlue." to "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."

None of the references describe the Progressive Turnout Project as "leftist." BBC News describes the group as "liberal," Reuters describes the group as "a Democratic Party cause," and The Times of Israel describes the group as "a national group that rallies Democrats to vote." The group was originally described as "liberal" until this edit [3] arbitrarily changed the description to "leftist." SpaceDiver221 (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Erledigt Elli (talk | contribs) 13:29, 15 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.

Classmates are not reliable sources re: rifle team

While classmates are reliable sources regarding Crooks' behavior in high school, they are not at all reliable sources as to why Crooks' was not allowed to participate in teams or clubs. Coaches and club leaders have reasons why they make cuts, etc., and those reasons are not always provided to others for the sake of privacy. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. While news media looks for anything they can say about a person, we should require more than just a random classmate's unverifiable memory or opinion. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above, #Source suggestion / (more) classmate accounts regarding political leanings. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I went and read that discussion. It doesn't mention the rifle team reference at all. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I changed the wording from 'said' to 'alleged' Kingturtle = (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Secret Service / Law Enforcement knew about Thomas for 30 minutes

https://nypost.com/2024/07/15/us-news/thomas-matthew-crooks-was-spotted-on-roof-by-law-enforcement-nearly-30-minutes-before-attempted-trump-assassination-report/

https://www.wpxi.com/news/local/alleged-trump-shooter-spotted-by-law-enforcement-nearly-30-minutes-before-shots-fired-sources-say/Q6GIK5RP6RBY5PHIMYBNXRTEBI 2603:6011:A600:84B1:8561:ABEC:E11:FF03 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Need better quality sources EvergreenFir (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

In the assassination section, it says that he tried to assassinate him on July 14 though he died on July 13

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.

---

In the assassination section, it says that he tried to assassinate him on July 14 though he died on July 13 Bebo12321 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved: The "July 14" in that section refers to the date the FBI identified Crooks as the shooter in the assassination attempt the previous day. No corrections need to be made. C F A 💬 00:54, 16 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.

Encounter with law enforcement

While it does say this in the full article on the assassination, I think it should mention here that Crooks encountered law enforcement right before opening fire. He also was recorded by a reporter. ChocolateCharcuterieBoard (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Accident?

Hey @Tataral:. Did you intend to add his political views into the lead twice? It was already listed in the second paragraph.

Thanks, KlayCax (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC).

Please Delete

Closed, as right now this is a WP:DEADHORSE argument (see the top of this page for prior discussions on the matter). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This page is long and includes a photo and details which demonstrate how famous you can become in an instant. Please delete this page immediately. It provides an incentive for young would-be famous people to commit similar acts. I recommend folding it into an article about the assassination attempt itself. 100.0.119.118 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC) considering your contributions so far have been pure vandalism, no thanks. Bohbye (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC) For the record: The two previous contributions under the IP most likely weren't by the person who posted the comment above. IP addresses rotate, sometimes very frequently. I doubt they've had the same IP for four months now. Lots of IPs on Wikipedia have been used by multiple people; it's one of the advantages of creating an account. C F A 💬 02:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC) This kind of reasoning is not encylopedic. The inclusion or exclusion of this article on moral grounds has nothing to do with me or edits made from my IP address. You seem like vultures, swooping in on a fun pulp story as a pet project. Until further details are available, this entry is speculative and fun, like a DailyMail article. Please apply for journalism positions, but don't contribute to encyclopedia entries. Not responsible. 100.0.119.118 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)Please see the multiple deletion discussions linked at the top of this page. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC) You could always start another deletion discussion or a deletion review, but judging how the last ones went I wouldn't suggest it. And while I generally agree with your sentiment that giving these people attention probably isn't a great idea, it can't be avoided. It's arguably been the biggest story of the month, if not the year. His picture is plastered on newspapers around the world. Everything about him that journalists could possibly find has been documented somewhere. This article isn't special either; there are many articles like this on Wikipedia that I've worried have probably influenced people in the past (see, for example, the Columbine shooters). C F A 💬 02:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC) I appreciate your concern and interest in preventing violence, but I actually think it's interesting to explore the nuance of why this argument is wrong here when it might well be right when deployed in acts which are similar in many but not key ways. I am deeply sympathetic to the concern of the clear net harm in granting publicity and infamy to those who attack the defenseless and obscure. When someone commits an act of mass violence, they foist themself and unwillingly their victims, the place, their victims' mourners all into the light of infamy and public interest when only they wanted to be there. If utmost care is not taken (and it never is) to highlight only those harmed, if the name of a perpetrator ends up remembered and the names of a single victim forgotten, then the perpetrator successfully steals the entire legacy of those they kill, makes the world a worse and less full of positive possibility place for all whom survive. If they believe they have no risk of failure before achieve infamy, then one could rationally, amorally, approach the idea that even if it's all their life amounts to, if they too die in the act, or spend the rest of their days in prison, that it could be "worth it", could be their best choice if they don't expect to amount to anything otherwise. "At least my name is remembered, even if only to be hated". In this, treating such a person as notable, of granting notability rather than choice-fully denying it or granting it only to victims, there is the creation of an incentive, the offer of an option to have summoned durable infamy: to contemptuously make the human sacrifice of others on the altar of the importance of the self. And in this, we would always do well choose not to participate. but here is a different situation in two key regards: 1. the lesser but not dismissible: a would be assassin should by all rights expect to fail in such an attempt - the target was not defenseless, they were extremely defended. If what a deranged and/or hopeless individual seeks is to be known and remembered, this is a terrible tactic actually: they run every risk of being killed or injured then sent away forever while remaining in obscurity: no one (who isn't involved in the disposal of them, living or dead) learns the name of an assassin who is foiled early, and those are the overwhelming multitude of those who attempt. And here too was failure, but a rare and uncontrollable by the subject of the article outcome of failure by smaller degree. He did a tremendously, unjustifiably stupid thing (if you believe notoriety his goal) and he got lucky: he "earned" his notability altogether less because he tried, more because those who could and should have stopped him earlier failed to. In that light one oughtn't prioritize calling for deletion of this article, but calling for the creation of the articles which might help foil the next attempter sooner. I have my opinions, but I leave it to you to imagine what those would be. 2. The thing which makes the total difference: the target and would be victim. Put aside the possibility of motives besides notoriety, and what was attempted (and what, if anything, was achieved) here was still a fundamentally different type of act: because the the thing is what occurred in Donald Trump's life on (any) Saturday was already a matter of public interest. Against the odds and primarily through the screwups of others, this dude managed to worm his way into borrowing (if both expanding and sharing) some of the public interest that would be on Donald Trump anyway. Unlike a mass shooter he didn't truly summon the interest of a disinterested public that is therefore complicit when it gives that interest, he only distracted and focused interest the public already had. If we the public are complicit here, it is only exactly in as much as we would grant our interest to Trump before someone tries to shoot him. And in that way, for now, this article is an equally uncomplicated matter of public interest, will survive AfDs til the public looses interest or til Trump has regained all interest diverted from him (he's good at that). And so the article exists, for now, perhaps not incapable of causing harm with its existence, but inspiring imitators only who profoundly misunderstand who anyone cares about, or will remember. because here's the thing: even the successful assassin can never make a name for themself Would it be better if I didn't know the names Booth, Oswald, or Hinkley? maybe. But ask someone who knows the names who were they? They are the men who shot Lincoln, Kennedy, and Reagan. They are a dim star in the constellation of the legacy of another whom will always outshine them and define them. These 3 lived long enough to speak their motives so we know it wasn't about fame: it was about white supremacy, it was (admittedly not entirely clear, but probably) about communism, it was about Jody Foster. For two of them therefore we can guess they might be okay having unmade their names in this way (Hinkley meanwhile lives, is reformed, regrets what he did, and seems quite frustrated that no one now does or likely ever will care about his music or seem him as anything but failed assassin and crazy stalker fan). In the end an assassin sacrifices themself on the altar of their victim's legacy. I'm not sure that public participation in that makes it any more appealing actually. and that's if they succeed, which isn't what we have here. This article exists, for now. And it will exist while it remains or while it can be mistaken for being, in its own right, a matter of public interest. But that interest will fade and return to whence it came. I could be wrong, but I feel confident that someday, long before this person would have naturally died if they'd made other choices, this article will be cut down to its bare essentials of most relevance and merged into the article on the event. He will not have achieved fame, whether or not that's what he wanted, he will have only traded everything he could have been for being an interesting and rarely looked at detail in a thing that happened to Donald Trump one Saturday. I truly hope no one will mistake that as worth aspiring towards. To the lost soul who would see such as viable path to legacy, that this is the most you can hope for should ultimately serve as a cautionary tale. Donald Guy (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump signs have been seen outside the home until recently

(1) Acyn on X: "Local Pittsburgh News WPXI: Crooks’ motive is still unclear. Records show he is a registered Republican and neighbors today told us that they’ve actually seen Trump signs outside of the home over the last few years https://x.com/Acyn/status/1812973073647521809" / X BasedGigachad (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't indicate Crook's political beliefs. As far as we know, his father (registered as a Libertarian) could've been the one who put down those signs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Change "liberal" to "left-leaning"

"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."

Can we change this? The word "liberal" is not synonymous with having left-leaning / progressive views. The former describes political views that support individual freedoms, regardless of political orientation. Phynixeon (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: This was recently changed in #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 (2) (pinging involved editors: SpaceDiver221, Elli) so consensus should be established before it is changed again. C F A 💬 03:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Location of where he placed the ladder and climbed the roof

Google Street Maps of where he put the ladder and climbed the building. Google street maps

Someone from that area should go there and take a picture once you can. Wikideas1 (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024

Given the context, I believe that the term "immediately" could be misleading. If Crooks had enough time to shoot multiple times, the use of "immediately" might not accurately describe the situation. i believe this revised version of that sentence gives more clarity: "On July 13, 2024, at a political rally near Butler, Pennsylvania, Crooks shot at Trump with an AR-15–style rifle from a nearby rooftop while Trump was giving a speech, injuring Trump and two attendees, and killing another. He was subsequently killed by the Secret Service Counter Assault Team. Misinformation and conspiracy theories about him have proliferated. An investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is underway and his motivation remains unknown." The8bass (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to remove the qualification altogether, and just say "he was killed by ...". The source this is based on doesn't specify a timeline at all, it just says he was killed by the Secret Service. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate political information

Donation to democratic group was made by a 60 year old Thomas Crooks, not the shooter. The elder Crooks is a different man of the same name but no affiliation. Shooter was also a registered Republican 67.249.224.94 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Source please? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Has already been extensively discussed in Talk:Thomas_Matthew_Crooks#Inaccuracy_of_$15_donation. Emma0mb ^talk 19:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024 (2)

ORIGINAL: Recollections about Crooks's political views from teachers, classmates, and peers who reportedly interacted with him have varied significantly and are inconsistent with one another.[3]

PROBLEM:That statement as put is false and is not backed by the source. Nothing in the source indicates statements about his political views are inconsistent. They all say he was conservative, if they mention his politics at all. There are comments that show views of his personality and social interaction were inconsistent. BUT NOT HIS POLITICS. Read the source you cite, I am correct about that. When those who know him mention his political views they all say conservative.

REVISION: Recollections about Crooks's political views from teachers, classmates, and peers who reportedly interacted with him all say he was conservative.[3] Rswartzmaine (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)'

REFERENCE (already cited in the original)

Vargas, Ramon Antonio (July 15, 2024). "Former classmate describes Trump rally gunman as 'definitely conservative'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.

Notability criteria for perpetrators

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.

---

Wikipedia:Notability (people) says, under "Crime victims and perpetrators," that:

A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

Clearly, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump constitutes an existing article about the criminal event, and the available encyclopedia material relating to the shooter appears to be fairly scant. He doesn't appear to have done anything else meeting Notability standards in his short life, and obviously won't be doing anything Notable in the future.

Given the breaking-news nature of the article, how many edits it's getting right now, and all that, I don't propose it be deleted immediately, but in the long run, I think it will probably be justifiable for this page to be merged into the page about the event, with a redirect for the shooter's name.

SiimaTamba (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed quite extensively in multiple AfDs, which ended with a large majority deciding to keep the article. See WP:BLP1E and note the third condition which must be met; it explicitly uses the perpetrator of an assassination attempt as an example of when a separate article is warranted:

The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. GhostOfNoMeme 16:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the sentiment that this was discussed extensively. I understand the rationale behind the decisions to speedy close the reviews, but the initial closure was premature. Nevertheless, here we are. I believe at some point we'll need to have another serious discussion because this article is barely more than slightly different arrangement of information that's already present in the main assassination article; and if it doesn't ever amount to more than that it should be taken to AfD (yes, again).

John Hinckley Jr. has a separate article primarily because he survived the attempt and there was a trial, there are other examples of assassination attempts where the attempted assassin doesn't have an article because they immediately died and everything that can be said about them can be covered in the assassination article. Editors seems to want to cherry-pick that example from WP:BLP1E but disregard the part where it says and well documented. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have a fourth AfD once some time has passed. I don't believe the outcome would be any different. The more time that passes, the more well-documented Crooks will be — surely. The consensus was that coverage and notability are sufficient now; it's hard to believe it'll be otherwise in WP:6MONTHS. Maybe opinion will change by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th AfD and I'll eat my words. GhostOfNoMeme 16:38, 16 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.

Known for left-handed shooting (or right-handed, whatever the case)

When RS chimes in, should the article say: At the sports club, the shooter was known for left-handed shooting (or right-handed shooting, whatever the case)?--The information would probably have little value, except to satisfy limited (or general?) curiosity. 2001:2020:301:AB5D:1893:750:6D6D:7CD9 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

From WP:NOTEVERYTHING

Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.

Emma0mb ^talk 19:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not making any sense to add it. It srhe same as he is know to have king hair and wear prescription glasses. It does not affect anything. Bohbye (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"July 13, 2024 (aged 20) Butler Township/Connoquenessing Township/Meridian"

Did this guy existed simultaneously at three different locations when he died or how does this work? Trade (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I saw that and was also wondering. @Atubofsilverware: you made this edit, can you explain why we're saying he died in three different places? I'll fix the broken dab link in the meantime. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Never mind, CookieMonster755 beat me to it and removed all the extraneous places. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to have it link to Butler Township instead of Butler County as its more specific? Emma0mb ^talk 22:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The exact location of death was in Meridian within Butler Township, however, its only about 120m away from Connoquenessing Township, and to my understanding, the entrance and/or some of the rally was within Connoquenessing. Emma0mb ^talk 22:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Ivanvector, hey sorry for not communicating. It doesn't make sense to list all those townships and just makes the infobox messy. Do we not know the exact town he died in? cookie monster 755 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We do, it was in Meridian. Butler County is technically correct but very vague since that is a 795 sq mile area. Even with the context of knowing it was "near Butler" that could be a large radius around the city and Meridian isn't even the closest settlement to Butler. Raskuly (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Raskuly: Since he died in Meridian that is the location that should be listed. I am not sure why three different locations were added. cookie monster 755 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Raskuly (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about Connoquenessing, but Butler being the main location reported by media outlets and Meridian being the most precise location would explain 2 of them. Emma0mb ^talk 19:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the reason. I don't really have a horse in this race though, just trying to avoid edit warring because all four locations have been added and removed on each page relating to the shooting. I'll let others decide what to put. Atubofsilverware (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Should this sentence be included?

This was recently added in once again:

According to a neighbor, there had been pro-Trump yard signs in his family's home's front yard.

But this seems to be once again a blatant violation of WP: BLP, WP: BLPPRIVACY, WP: HEARSAY, and the consensus of the talk. Seeing as how this wasn't Crooks' house. But his parents. (He of course probably couldn't influence what signs his parents put up. It is his parents house.) This seems like (once again) an attempt to push the reader into concluding he is conservative... which, from multiple sources, is debatable at best for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

At this point any political position seems debatable Trade (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024 (3)

Melania Trump described Crooks' assassination attempt, stating: “A monster who recognized my husband as an inhuman political machine attempted to ring out Donald’s passion - his laughter, ingenuity, love of music, and inspiration,” according to a news article by The Independent. Trump Editor (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This would be better suited on the main article in the reactions section. C F A 💬 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

injured inconsistency

on assassination page it says 4 injured however here it is 3 injured so here is a inconsistency. Asigooo (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

On the other page some editors decided to do original work and calculate on their own, sure will be leak over to this page as well. Bohbye (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Citing sources is not original research. Raskuly (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Mention of unknown motive in lead

Should it even be mentioned that the motive has not been reported in the lead? I'd argue that it's an unnecessary detail, especially for the very first paragraph of the article, but even though I like being bold, I figured I'd inquire here to ask what everyone else thinks. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"Unknown motive", seems fine in the lede, if that is what RS are saying.--Without that, the article is (arguably) only building up suspense, so to speak: the shooter had 'given chump-change to a political organisation', and wearing a 'pro-gun (sort of) T-shirt'; Trump-poster on the lawn (with or without Manchurian candidate story as a backdrop) and on and on. 2001:2020:305:BE9D:190F:F4E6:BBD:2ACD (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Not actually contradictory recollections

The source cited to support the sentence that recollections about Crooks varied and were contradictory does not say that. Every single former classmate said he was conservative and that was cited in the article.Personisinsterest (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

He was not conservative, in the way he dressed.--If four students said that he was "pro gun politics", then we perhaps should say that.--If three students said that he was "pro-life anti-abortion", then perhaps we should say that. However, i feel there should probably be more substance than 'some students remembering something that can not be corroberated' with other kinds of documentation (photos, yearbook, student-newspaper). 2001:2020:305:BE9D:190F:F4E6:BBD:2ACD (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

One of them say he was right leaning, most say conservative. Some say he didn't talk about politics. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2024

Change city of birth to Bethel Park Aicoder2009 (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fix the Spelling: Politally is an embarrassing misspelling.

There is a spelling error in the final section. Politically, not "politally." "Authorities have stated that his political views are unknown, and they do not know whether his assassination attempt was politally motivated."

Fix the spelling. Be better, guys. 96.231.190.103 (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for contributing some of your perfection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"Recollections about Crooks's political views are inconsistent and contradict one another."

The citation for the sentence "Recollections about Crooks's political views are inconsistent and contradict one another.", currently in the article, quotes the guardian article "Former classmate describes Trump rally gunman as ‘definitely conservative’". Reading the article, the relevant part seems to be this:

“The majority of the class were on the liberal side, but Tom, no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side,” Smith said. “That’s still the picture I have of him. Just standing alone on one side while the rest of the class was on the other.”
Recollections about Crooks’ political views and high school experience vary considerably.

But reading the rest of the article, nowhere does it mention anybody else saying Crooks wasn't a conservative. The "vary considerably" seem to apply to whether Crooks was bullied, but doesn't seem to apply to his political standpoint, judging from the lack of counterexamples cited. Note that the school debate mentioned above took place in college, and so is more recent and relevant than whatever Crooks political standpoint was in high school. No other news article I can find gives any reason to think Crooks held anything but conservative views (except for the donation). This quote from CNN also makes it plausible Crooks was conservative:

A third classmate, who asked not to be named, said that Crooks was very smart, took honors classes, and was shy. She said that he had a group of friends who were fairly conservative, some of whom would wear Trump hats.

Given this, I think it is misleading for the article to say that Crooks political views are inconsistent and contradict one another - I can see no inconsistency or contradiction? I suggest changing the text to "In college history class debates Crooks always argued the conservative side, according to his classmate Max R Smith". Thue (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Not okay, is what i think. 'college history class debates', might be about as significant as things that i say at my local pub, during Last call for alcohol.--Besides, that classmate is not a known expert about what is conservatism, and what is not.--For now, and maybe forever, the classmate's name should probably stay out of the article, with those hardly(?)-specific observations. 2001:2020:305:BE9D:D9D:115A:C14C:263C (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

From [4]:

Former student Max R. Smith remembered Crooks as an intelligent classmate with conservative political leanings. Smith recalled participating in a mock debate in a course they took together, where their teacher posed questions on government policy and had students stand on opposite sides of the classroom to signal their support or opposition.

“The majority of the class were on the liberal side, but Tom, no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side,” Smith said. “That’s still the picture I have of him. Just standing alone on one side while the rest of the class was on the other. ... It makes me wonder why he would carry out an assassination attempt on the conservative candidate.”

That sounds organized enough to make a clear determination of his political leanings. It is certainly far better than just "things that i say at my local pub". I agree that we could wish for more and better sources in an ideal world, but I don't think it is reasonable to ignore what appears to be our only source. It is also falsifiable - the history teacher and the other students will likely be reading this in the news, and have the ability to object publicly if it was wrong. And it seems likely that the journalist who got the quote from Smith also talked to other people who were in the class, and would not have brought the Smith quote if it was not credible. Thue (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thue - no, we can't use a former classmates recollections of Crooks participation in a "mock debate" to definitively declare what Crooks political leanings were. A former classmate is not a subject matter expert, and is therefore not qualified to make a clear determination of his political leanings. And also from the source you provided, it clearly states - His political leanings were not immediately apparent. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

And also from The Guardian source - Recollections about Crooks’ political views and high school experience vary considerably. And from The New York Times - Investigators were scouring his online presence and working to gain access to his phone, but so far had not found indications of strongly held political beliefs. And from Time Magazine - authorities “have not yet identified an ideology” associated with Crooks. Another one from The Philadelphia Inquirer - Several alumni ... paint a conflicting portrait ... one said he was an outspoken conservative, while others don’t recall him broadcasting political views. So it would be UNDUE to use just one former classmates personal opinion to state something definitively. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So disingenuous. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The history class may have been discussing a single issue, and Crooks may have supported the conservative view of that single issue. That alone wouldn't clearly confirm that we was a conservative. The fact that he also contributed to a Democrat PAC suggests that he might be more of a independent or centrist who leaned conservative on some issues, and liberal on others. 2607:F140:400:7B:E0EF:C865:586A:A469 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Someone spread the claim that he was center-left without sourcing it and everyone just took it as a fact. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

However, we should mention that most say he was conservative or didn't talk about politics. There's other classmates that have come out in other sources and said this. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

He gave a classmate a hard time for his support of Trump: [5]. 152.130.15.107 (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This is interesting. However: Fox News, especially in politics, is unreliable. And also, the classmate said he didn't like politicians in general during that time, and highlighted that he didn't like Clinton or Sanders. It's also weird considering at least two other people said he supported Trump. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No matter what, it is worth mentioning. We can't just write off important information as contradictory. We need to explain it. Readers are going to want to know more. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you know what the government policy proposals were in that mock debate that Max R Smith and Thomas Crooks were involved in? 156.146.74.135 (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem here is with editors feeling they need to summarize his politics at all, instead of listing reliably sourced specific examples of his political engagement.

For the record I do consider his classmates' statements fair game, as long as they're cited in a publication Wikipedia considers a reliable news source - it's not Wikipedia's job to determine what info in a news article is credible, only whether the publication is.

The other problem with the "his politics aren't known/consistent" lines is that they come with no in-text attribution to their source(s). They're presented in Wikivoice and could be read as Wikipedia's own evaluation of his political engagement.

Ereb0r (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It is Wikipedias job though to determine if one particular classmates personal opinion is WP:DUE for inclusion, regardless of what publication it is. Best practice is to just summarize what reliable sources are reporting, and it is okay to state it in Wikivoice when the general consensus among those sources is that "his politics aren't known/consistent". Isaidnoway (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2024 (2)

Please fix the first citation in "Early life and education":

−

{{r|Jacoby-2024}}

+

{{r|USA Today-2024}}

Kovcszaln6 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed by User:ActivelyDisinterested, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

BlackRock

I fail to see the significance of that advertisement, and actually view it close to slander. Seeking consensus to remove. Bohbye (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to remove it; per WP:ONUS it's on editors to find consensus to keep it. I agree that this particular fact is immaterial to the article and what he is notable for, thus it appears to be WP:UNDUE. WP:NOTEVERYTHING also applies. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

​​​​​ Advertisement on Blackrock has been removed. Adding link here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Matthew_Crooks&diff=prev&oldid=1235065977. There was earlier consensus for inclusion. talk:Thomas_Matthew_Crooks#Is_television_commercial_appearance_notable

207.96.32.81 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Style

sentence at end of lead should read 'his activities....' instead of "...activities by him". Add 'former fire chief' to describe the victim, Corey. If he was a volunteer, I don't think that should affect this descriptor. I'd say the same with a cashier, or retired doctor, or pretty much any job. It is called for, adds information, and reads well because there was only 1 victim thank God.
Ivanvector: I had edited my request to reflect the concerns raised, and zzuuzz actually thanked for me that edit, which I assume means they now agree to the request. However, please close my request if you personally, or others, disagree, as that would mean there is no consensus, and I would start a discussion. JoeJShmo^💌 14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Also add descriptor "fireman" for the victim Corey in assassination section. Reads better and seems appropriate to give that basic descriptor. JoeJShmo^💌 15:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The first part of this request was resolved by someone entirely removing that part. I'm not enacting the second part for a couple of reasons: First, the reference has become irrelevant. Beyond that I think it could be misleading, in terms of suggesting the person was on duty, as you'd see if you said he shot a police officer. They were off-duty, a volunteer, a former fire chief (apparently, and this is commonly noted), and he had another occupation. I'd also ask, if it was a shop worker would the occupation be mentioned? Feel free to add some persuasion and refine the request, but for now I'm marking it as answered with this explanation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As zzuuzz already said, the first part (about "activities") was mooted by another edit, and the second part (about adding "fireman") does not seem to have consensus. I would suggest that you discuss first and then make a new request once consensus is established, rather than changing the existing request that was already replied to (twice now). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Surgical masks at school (clarification needed)

"(wearing camouflage hunting outfits and) surgical masks to school".--The wiki-article should probably clarify.--Does this have a lot to do with the Covid pandemic?--If one were wearing surgical masks (year 2024), at my local schools in a Nordic country, then one would quite possibly get teased - if not bullied. 2001:2020:315:BF09:25E3:153:B8C3:D189 (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikivoice violations / unnecessary handholding

Unless the cited material itself explicitly mentions that Crooks' views are inconsistent - and unless that source is attributed in-text in the Wiki article - it's best left out. Right now, the statements about his views being inconsistent come across as Wikipedia's own evaluation of his politics. Same with the sentence about how public records don't indicate his political views - as his voting record does indeed indicate a political affiliation, that part comes across as a reminder, or advice, that we shouldn't assume these records are representative of his politics.

Might be easier to avoid this problem if the section on his politics stuck to listing specific examples instead of trying to summarize or interpret them for the reader. Ereb0r (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to make multiple threads about this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added comments to other people's threads, but this is the only thread I've actually made for this article's talk page. Ereb0r (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

American man vs US-American man

The article states that Mr. Crooks "was an American man". Can we clarify this statement? As he was born in Pennsylvania, USA, the description should read: "was an US-American man". 2001:16B8:CC29:3300:341A:7ED:3733:B805 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

American generally means "from the USA". I know the arguments against that usage, but it is the predominant usage EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, while US-American is technically valid, it is a fairly uncommon way to describe someone. U.S. American is more common, but in my opinion still sounds awkward.

I don't like using "American" to mean U.S. citizen because America is three entire continents, but that's the most common usage both on Wikipedia and in general. We could replace it with "was a male U.S. citizen", though frankly I think it should remain the way it is 174.61.187.77 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we know if he was a citizen though? I don't think any RS have looked into his citizenship (I wonder why) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't have a source on that (yet?) but he grew up in Pennsylvania. Presuming he was also born there he would be a citizen by birthright. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to point out that presumption. He could be a DREAMer. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Valid point, I don't have an RS - was just assuming. I agree that even if that wording was preferable, we should wait for an RS 174.61.187.77 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"US-American" is a meaningless niche term that offers no more specificity than the term you're objecting to - technically any Western Hemisphere country subdivided into states is a United States of America. Lots of countries around the world have generic names that could also apply to other places (the Netherlands, South Africa, etc.) but we only ever use them for one.

Wikipedia widely already uses the term American to refer to people from a specific country, so that's the naming convention we should stick to. Ereb0r (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• No, we should not use "US-American", which seems to be an invented term. "American" is the demonym for people and things from the United States, as per our article on that country. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  US-American is a real term 174.61.187.77 (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  though it's really rare

  See https://www2.pacific.edu/sis/culture/pub/1.4.4_-_Sources_of_US-Americ.htm for an example page using this term 174.61.187.77 (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Going through Category:American_people, I found 10 random individuals and all but 1 listed them as "an American _____". Emma0mb ^talk 19:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

More than an attempted assassination

The article correctly states that Crooks shot and attempted to assassinate President Trump. It falls short in not stating the other crimes committed by Crooks at the same time. The article should be corrected / amended to include Crooks' brutal murder of firefighter Corey Comperatore, his critical injury of David Dutch, and his critical injury of James Copenhaver. Bulletman850 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

These other crimes are mentioned both in the very first sentence, even before mentioning any assassination or Trump, and then later in the article. I think you're going to have to be more specific in your suggested edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Information about FBI's access to his phone + what they've found

The FBI now has access to Crooks' devices and the NYT has reported that he searched for images of "Mr. Trump and President Biden, along with an array of public figures" and that he "looked up dates of Mr. Trump’s appearances and the Democratic National Convention." This is important to the political views (or motive) section of the article because it meaningfully substantiates the theory that Crooks did not have strong partisan political beliefs. According to the article, Crooks instead had a "a general disdain for politicians in both parties." In a hunt for a motive and/or political beliefs, I believe this article offers an important piece of evidence that should be added. (I don't have the power.)

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/us/trump-shooting-crooks-motive.html TypingMadeSimple (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding "because it meaningfully substantiates the theory that Crooks did not have strong partisan political beliefs", we cannot make that statement it allude to any such conclusion per WP:SYNTH. Adding what they found would be fine by itself though. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Typo

Currently, under the Early life and education section, the article reads "Some students and graduates from Bethel Park High School allged that Crooks tried out for his school's rifle team, but he failed the tryout because of poor aim."

Could someone with permissions change "allged" to "alleged"? VoidBehemoth (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It has been fixed. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024

This is full of inaccuracies. The biggest 1 being the statement that classmates said he was "bullied" fox news has an interview with Sarah de Angelo a classmate of crooks and she point blankly said he was NOT bullied. I thought Wikipedia was suppose to be where you could come find the truth. Not a site to make up stories to try to make criminals victims. I will start getting my research and information from different sites. 2604:2D80:D800:5C00:4A4B:CFEB:CF2A:6C03 (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hearsay (?) about "poor aim" and try-out

Please move to talk page: Notability not demonstrated (however, RS are allowed to say that some think that the Moon is made of green cheese).

"Some students and graduates from Bethel Park High School allged that Crooks tried out for his school's rifle team, but he failed the tryout because of poor aim."

Now, if the wiki-article were to say (and source) that this-or-that-member of the rifle team was a witness to when the shooter did not make the cut on the rifle team, for whatever reason (or even for no specific reason), then that might seem okay for the wiki-article.--However, the "poor aim" claim (in regard to a rifle team try-out), seems like an urban myth: Dude with glasses - or geekish - and hunting-wear or combat-wear, yeah let's just make up a story that he had "poor aim".--Another way to write this section is to first say what the school district says; after that one can say that "some students have an idea that he tried out for the rifle-team, but that he did not qualify for a spot on the team". Thoughts (about all of this)?--I support all that stuff being moved to the Talk page. 2001:2020:315:E1A6:836:8CA5:6701:CD62 (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)