Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Defensive party registration

Do not use this page to discuss conspiracy theories.

Pennsylvania is a closed primary state. So, sources are speculating that Crooks registered as a Republican so he could vote against Trump, and Trump-backed candidates, in Republican primary elections, and the failure to defeat Trump in that primary likely influenced his decision to try to assassinate him. Being a registered Republican would still allow him to vote for Democrats in the general elections. 152.130.15.110 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) he changed when he turned 18 in late 2021. if he registered as a Republican then i doubt that was his motive for 3 years later. probably some sort of radicalisation turned him and he never ended up changing his registration IEditPolitics (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect

Draft:Thomas Matthew Crooks Sttammany (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You gotta be 35 to run for president

It stated that he tried to run for president but he’s under the age to do so… (I know not professional but just putting the obvious out. 2600:1016:B029:C3FE:5411:B265:A653:257F (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Should be a redirect?

I think? Oeoi (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes until there is good reasons to turn it into an article on its own. Bohbye (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm in the same camp. We know very little about the shooter, and it would be better to cover the shooter as part of a larger page about the broader topic of the assassination attempt, with more context. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

would be assassins are generally are given their own page - this being the case with the Ford attempts. 70.169.187.178 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Entry has already survived AfD, so archiving this section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Fix Some Information and Grammar

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.

---

The amount of people he shot needs to be plural. And I believe he shot 4 people Including Trump, 2 Males and 1 Female leaving one of the males dead. Tdwizew (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

nvm about the plural part... Tdwizew (talk) 17:27, 14 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.

Grammar

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.

---

Where it says “he donated $15” it should say “he had donated $15”, as the text has just said that afterwards he registered himself as a Republican. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 17:20, 14 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.

"was allegedly purchased by his father[4] to fire eight rounds from a rooftop"

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.

---

Come on! What kind of misleading statement is that? Dad buying a gun for his son for this very specific purpose? Movies have blooper reels, I guess this one makes the en-WP reel. 2003:C6:3742:EEB8:8C09:30D:D977:8BC1 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed EvergreenFir (talk) 18:11, 14 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.

Blackrock

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.

---

Add that he was in an advertisement for Blackrock. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/07/14/us/trump-rally-gunman-thomas-crooks-invs 207.96.32.81 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for pointing this out. C F A 💬 20:39, 14 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 14 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.

---

change July 14 to Jul 13, cause that's when it happened. 24.38.199.114 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It has been fixed. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 20:19, 14 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.

Mistake in the introduction

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.

---

At the end of the introduction, it says Crooks attempted to assassinate Trump on July 14, 2024, when the attempt actually took place on July 13, 2024. Can someone please fix this? JW2009 (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done: This has already been fixed. C F A 💬 20:41, 14 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.

Why is it discussed for deletion?

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.

---

Many failed assassins have their own wiki page and info, like Reagan, Ford and even Andrew Jackson all have their failed assassins a wiki page of their own, I feel like it should be kept 2600:100C:B204:5D73:38E2:6BE9:5F0A:D7B8 (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

What about all these who dont have their own Wiki pages? Trade (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Then express your concerns on the deletion page, not here. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted. BrendonJH (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We also know a whole hell of a lot more about those other failed assassins. Seems irresponsible to repeat information circulating so early in the press; these kinds of stories tend to evolve very quickly and have a lot of incomplete, out of context info circulating. Just look at the comments on this tall page: what few bits of info that are "known" about this person's politics are being made suspect. I read that a reporter spoke to this person's father who implied that he hadn't even spoken to law enforcement yet and was trying to figure out what was going on himself. Seems prudent to show some humility and patience with this one. 2600:1700:8D70:1490:8DA9:3F2C:7129:547 (talk) 16:08, 14 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.

Should not be deleted.

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.

---

This is a major political event that has been covered by the world over, from Malaysia, Australia, India, China, Russia, et-cetera. When compared to say, school shooting they get little coverage outside the US unless they are major. This assassin was only centimeters from killing one of the most controversial/polarizing figures in American history. If Manson has an article so should this guy. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that this article should not be deleted (yet). People like to read about the profile of a shooter and it is important to have a reliable source. Wikipedia may be that reliable source if evil wikipedian does not erase that information, instead of validating and fixing issues. Martiniturbide (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This should be obvious to anyone in touch with reality.

Modern Wikipedia is Reddit in everything but name. 85.135.216.213 (talk) 20:27, 14 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.

Make Thomas Crooks redirect here?

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.

---

The football coach seems to be significantly less relevant than this guy, perhaps it should be Thomas Crooks (Football Coach) or at least make a disambiguation page KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Disgree- I think that the redirect links on either person’s Wikipedia page would be fine, maybe something like “Not to be confused with the American football coach: Thomas Crooks” A guy from murica97390 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait for now, but I imagine Thomas Matthew Crooks will end up being the primary topic for Thomas Crooks. C F A 💬 17:07, 14 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.

Not notable

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.

---

Doesn't need to be here Gammawammallama (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gammawammallama Based on the AfD discussions, the community has decided otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 14 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.

This doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

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.

---

How the fuck did people !vote keep on two different AfDs. This is a useless content fork of the main article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The community evidently disagrees. GhostOfNoMeme 21:27, 14 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.

yearbook photo

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 is unclear what year that yearbook photo took place. Can we get a confirmation on whether it was his senior year or another year? Kingturtle = (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, now that photo has been deleted. Awaiting new version. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:38, 14 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 14 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.

---

On July 14, 2024, Brooks attempted to assassinate Donald Trump at a political rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. He injured Trump and two attendees, and killed one attendee. He was subsequently killed by the Secret Service Counter Assault Team.

Verbiage should be changed to:

On July 14, 2024, Brooks attempted to assassinate Donald Trump at a political rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. He injured Trump, two attendees and killed one attendee. He was subsequently killed by the Secret Service Counter Assault Team. 74.105.228.46 (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done: Reworded the sentence. C F A 💬 22:49, 14 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.

Add the photo from the shooting page to the info box

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 the drivers license photograph image should appear on the infobox Minecraft812 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The file was deleted on Commons. Someone needs to upload a stable, presumably fair-use image of him so it can stay in the article. C F A 💬 21:00, 14 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 14 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.

---

Change “Motive: Unknown” to “Motive: Under investigation” Editstobenefit (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean... if it's under investigation, then I assume it's currently unknown, no? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:41, 14 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.

This doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

Collapsed, we alredy had like 2 discussions on the matter (WP:DEADHORSE). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How the fuck did people !vote keep on two different AfDs. This is a useless content fork of the main article. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC) The community evidently disagrees. I think the article is noteworthy and valuable, personally. I'm glad it was a vote to keep. GhostOfNoMeme 21:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) This is irrelavant to improving the article. We don't need a whole other AfD happening on the talk page. If you don't like the decision, you can always open another WP:DRV. C F A 💬 21:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC) This article definitely should be merged to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump per WP:BIO1E, but give it a week or two to see how things go before starting a merge discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:26F0:4310:2DBA:BA4D:535D:8DB5 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC) I'd encourage you to read the AfD discussion for why WP:BLP1E does not apply (the third condition, which funnily enough explicitly uses the perpetrator of an assassination attempt as an example). But let's not recreate the AfD here. GhostOfNoMeme 21:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Photo

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.

---

Perhaps his driver's license picture, as released by NBC News, is the best candidate for a free photo so far. IANAL but driver's license pictures, which are taken by machines, fit a very strict standard under AAMVA standards (p. 34) and hence doesn't allow for any original authorship or creative input; it is uncopyrightable in the U.S. per the Copyright Compedium (p. 17). Maybe the Commons PD-automated template would be a good fit for this. NAADAAN (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

good idea Gahror (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, a human being (in this case a DMV worker) still has to initiate the action of taking the photograph, so I would assume it'd be treated like a photograph taken by a photographer with a camera. In that case it'd be copyrighted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's PennDOT. While some U.S. states have public domain release for governmental works, I don't think Pennsylvania is one of them. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if someone has to click the shutter button, that doesn't constitute creative input especially if they're constrained by AAMVA standards. If there's no creative input in taking the photograph, then the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cannot claim copyright on the picture. There are templates like PD-ID-France which are based on this principle. NAADAAN (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Booking photos in the U.S. are taken using a very similar system. We generally consider booking photos to be copyrighted unless released via some other mechanism than automated. Regardless, I've placed the image for deletion on Commons. Whether I'm right or you're right, having an affirmative closure on the issue via a deletion discussion is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 14 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.

AFD

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 just tried to AFD this, thinking WP:TWINKLE would've notified of past AfDs when trying to AfD it. I was mistaken. I apologize for any editors that were forced to read my rationale and comment there, and I don't intend to renominate this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:41, 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.

political party should be removed

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.

---

John Hinckley Jr.'s political party isnt listed so it's strange to have his listed. that's not important at all and doesn't help the article any. 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:645A:4640:4027:17E9 (talk) 03:36, 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 (4)

This site needs to be deleted ASAP. NO credit should be given to this Animal. 50.104.110.142 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

IP editor, your opinion is unimportant. notability, policy, and article standards are important. Do not request these kinds of things again. BarntToust (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal characterization

Duplicate discussion with irrelevant personal commentary Abecedare (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The people who knew him best have contested the narrative that he was bullied, quiet, or a loner to an unusual degree. CNN Inquirer In any case, this character sketch follows a vulgar and reflexive (and therefore essentially meaningless and unreliable) trope about shooters. At the very least, the article should take a skeptical stance cognizant of that fact, saying "He has been characterized as X, though this has been contested by Y." Hikeddeck (talk) 05:19, 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) 06:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC) This is not the same thing, most people are not even particularly political, especially at his age. It remains dubious whether he was. Following is from the Guardian's blog: In Bethel Park, where the man who is suspected of opening fire at a Donald Trump campaign rally on Saturday lived with his mother and sister, the houses are small and built of brick, Walmart and Target form central social hubs, and moms watch over their children at a junior league baseball park next to a tributary of the Allegheny river. Claire, a young woman who had known Thomas Matthew Crooks through his elder sister and who did not provide a last name, said she could not quite believe the boy she had once knew had attempted to assassinate a US president. “He’s so young to want to go do that”, she said. She said Crooks had had a difficult time socially. “He wasn’t the most attractive-looking and I don’t think he did sports that can add appeal’” she said..." Claire's straightforwardness here is rather amazing, even if she didn't know him really and he won't hear anymore what he was probably all too aware of anyway. Imagine this is how people usually talk about you, behind your back. Moving away at least a couple hundred miles is about the best option. Provided you have the means, financial or otherwise. "Jim Knapp, who retired from his job as the school counselor at Bethel Park High School in 2022, said Crooks had always been “quiet as a churchmouse,” “respectful” and kept to himself. He contradicted some statements by former pupils which suggested Crooks had been frequently bullied, telling Reuters he rarely came across Crooks because “he wasn’t a needy type kid.” Crooks occasionally ate lunch by himself in the school cafeteria, said Knapp, who would engage such students to see if they wanted company. “Kids weren’t calling him names, kids weren’t bullying him,” Knapp said. Knapp said he never knew Crooks to be political in any way. “Anybody could snap, anybody could have issues,” he said. “Something triggered that young man and drove him to drive up to Butler yesterday and do what he did.” Finally someone who knows what he's talking about. Maybe an introvert but there's little to suggest he was bullied in a significant way. Likely kept too much to himself and disengaged too far from others as to make that even possible. He didn't care. Can actually be a preventive strategy, whether conscious or not. Like so many people I wasn't unlike this, never got harassed. How to bully a question mark? At this time anything else should be kept out of the article until there's a robust foundation, in particular when it comes to construals regarding "motivations". -199.116.118.201 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 (3)

LinkedIn profile for father indicates (Redacted)

state licensing system indicates (Redacted) s 100.6.87.191 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

LinkedIn is not a reliable source. Any news websites report on this? BarntToust (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) 100.6.87.191 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Consensus is that personal information about Crooks' parents is not relevant to the article and should not be included. Per WP:BLPREMOVE it should not be added, and should be removed immediately if anyone else does so. Please do not post this again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

there's a clear statement about his parents at the end of the first paragraph in early life and education so be consistent. and at least know that social workers and LPCs are not the same. educate yourselves. 100.6.87.191 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The lede lacks citation

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.

---

There is a lot of important information in the lede, but it lacks references. It is especially crucial to add citations, particularly regarding his political leanings. Frankserafini87 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Typicaly the lede merely summarizes sourced material in the article's body. Is that not the case here? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead sections generally do not have inline citations as long as the information is accurately cited somewhere else in the article. See WP:LEADCITE. Donald Trump, for example, has no citations in the lead. C F A 💬 22:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede citations in any proper article sumarize cited content within it. Irrelevant (non-) concern. BarntToust (talk) 23:10, 14 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.

"Demolition Ranch" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Demolition Ranch has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 15 § Demolition Ranch until a consensus is reached. C F A 💬 18:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024

Delete presumptive nominee because he was nominated today 70.58.22.56 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Already done The sentence has already been reworded. C F A 💬 04:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Should the perp be included in "fatalities" in the infobox?

It is common practice to count a dead perp in the infobox fatalities in a mass shooting. See 2024 Florence shooting, 2024 Burnsville shooting, 2024 Charlotte shootout, 2024 East Lansdowne shooting, 2024 Joliet shootings, 2024 Minneapolis shooting, Perry High School shooting, 2024 Rochester Hills shooting and many others in earlier years. The infobox at Attempted assassination of Donald Trump includes the perp in the fatalities.

An editor has decided to remove the perp from the fatality count on this page.[1]

Thoughts? WWGB (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Listing the perpetrator under the "killed" label implies he killed himself, while counting the perpetrator for the "deaths" label - as it appears in Template:Infobox_civilian_attack - simply states he died during the event. Emma0mb ^talk 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 [2] arbitrarily changed the description to "leftist." SpaceDiver221 (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done 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.

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.

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)

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)

Typo

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, 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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).

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

 Done: 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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 [3]:

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: [4]. 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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 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.

---

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This seems more of an opinionated rant than an request to edit anything, and Fox News is not a reliable source for politics. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:29, 18 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.

Investigation

Per Forbes. Investigators also found that, in addition to searching for information about Trump's Butler rally, Crooks searched for dates of the Democratic National Convention in August and for the dates of other Trump events. He'd also saved photos on his phone of Trump, Biden and several other politicians, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis, 173.17.84.142 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of $15 donation.

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.

---

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 donation happened to be done by a 69 year old who shares name and state with the shooter. Actblue also does not take donations from minors. 186.171.17.59 (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The address listed on the donation is apparently the same address as the shooter in this incident. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:22, 18 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)

We're not going to base anything on armchair social media "investigations"

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)

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 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)

Closing request since a subsequent edit has made it moot. If you have another suggestion to improve the article, please make a new request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:14, 18 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.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. There are several discussions about this on the page already. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 18 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)

  Well, okay. Are there any examples of reliable sources using it to describe Crooks? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not as far as I am aware. I'm not advocating for it's use, just pointing out that it is a real term 174.61.187.77 (talk) 17:18, 18 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)

"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)

It seems that the municipal boundary between Butler and Connoquenessing Townships does run straight through the center of the fairgrounds (right through the lake, if you're looking at a map), but both where Trump was shot and where Crooks fired from are well on the Butler Township (and town of Meridian) side of that line. I suggest we use Meridian, Pennsylvania, since it's the more specific location, and that article has links to the larger geographic divisions so they don't need to be listed again here. The assassination attempt has also already been added to that article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024 (2)

In the section of attempted assassination in the second paragraph please add the fact that trump survived because of a head tilt. A Random Indian (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Corey Comperatore descriptors

In an edit request above (see #Style), JoeJShmo suggested adding "former fire chief" as a descriptor for Corey Comperatore, the man who died in the assassination attempt. Their request was declined by zzuuzz and myself, both of us suggesting there should be more discussion before adding this.

I don't have any particular objection to adding it, but I am concerned about the presumption of privacy for non-notable persons and avoiding victimization (Crooks and Comperatore both have living relatives), as well as concerned about leaning too much into turning an article into a memorial since much of the coverage is going hard on hero worship. zzuuzz also mentioned that Comperatore hadn't been a firefighter for some time, but the source is paywalled and I can't see it.

Should we add Comperatore's occupation, or any other descriptors? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I should probably clarify what I said, which is probably best done by reading my original comment. Comperatore was off-duty, a volunteer (and presumably part-time) firefighter, a former fire chief, and he had another occupation. I don't really mind what conclusion is reached here. Personally I can't think of a great way of writing this. Saying 'killing 50-year-old former fire chief Corey Comperatore' seems a bit clunky to me, and IMO doesn't provide a fair or relevant summary of an entire person. I delegate this to the wordsmiths and others... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, you're welcome to listen to me but do still use references. I'll quote a helpful and relevant bit of context from a NY Times article, which can be found on search engines and archive sites: "... Buffalo Township Volunteer Fire Company, where Mr. Comperatore served for decades, including as chief in the early 2000s". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

"Off-duty volunteer firefighter" - i think that is a good start.--As time passes, one can tweek it from that starting point. 2001:2020:30D:DE09:A149:658B:8A82:73D1 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)