Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024 (3)

Please update the injuries, 5 were injured Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

injured inconsistency

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

On the other page some editors decided to do original work and calculate on their own, sure will be leak over to this page as well. Bohbye (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Citing sources is not original research. Raskuly (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
It hasn't happened yet. Asigooo (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly a lot of fun having the same arguments across two articles. Just more evidence towards the creation of this BLP being WP:TOOSOON. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Style

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

Also add descriptor "fireman" for the victim Corey in assassination section. Reads better and seems appropriate to give that basic descriptor. JoeJShmo💌 15:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The first part of this request was resolved by someone entirely removing that part. I'm not enacting the second part for a couple of reasons: First, the reference has become irrelevant. Beyond that I think it could be misleading, in terms of suggesting the person was on duty, as you'd see if you said he shot a police officer. They were off-duty, a volunteer, a former fire chief (apparently, and this is commonly noted), and he had another occupation. I'd also ask, if it was a shop worker would the occupation be mentioned? Feel free to add some persuasion and refine the request, but for now I'm marking it as answered with this explanation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. As zzuuzz already said, the first part (about "activities") was mooted by another edit, and the second part (about adding "fireman") does not seem to have consensus. I would suggest that you discuss first and then make a new request once consensus is established, rather than changing the existing request that was already replied to (twice now). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@JoeJShmo: it's generally considered poor form to modify or add to your comments after other editors have replied. It's preferred to add new comments below the replies instead, so everyone can see the conversation. Also, in order to use the notification system, you have to sign (with four tildes) the edit where you add the notification, as that's what triggers the notification for the other editor. I'm going to start a new discussion on your suggestion below, please feel free to participate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn't write a new reply bc I wasn't EC yet. But now I am :) thanks for starting the discussion we'll see how it goes JoeJShmo💌 14:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, you shouldn't need any permissions to edit the talk page. Were you getting an error? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah I mixed it up with ARBPIA where you can't even discuss on the talk page, only make edit requests. by the way, there can be many times that you have permission to edit but its just not allowed JoeJShmo💌 23:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah I see, you've run afoul of the ARBECR goon squad. We managed to construct a set of rules for that topic that are so uneven and inconsistent that the only editors who can manage to edit the topic at all are those that can figure out how to game the system, in other words precisely the sort of editors we don't want editing there. Sorry you ran into that - I'm coming up on 15 years here and even I avoid it. This article is covered by WP:CT/AP but is pretty far outside the scope of the Arab-Israel conflict, and there are no special rules for commenting here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2024

In the last paragraph of Thomas Matthew Crooks#Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, there is a sneaky little period after "Kate Middleton" and the comma is after the citations ("Kate Middleton.[33][34][35], as well"). My request is to change it to "Kate Middleton,[33][34][35] as well". BraunOBruno (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Source suggestion / (more) classmate accounts regarding political leanings

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

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

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

In particular this passage:

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

This is definitely something we should wait for, @Donald Guy:. It's very possible he started off as right-wing and then changed his opinion over time. There's stories of people from going from like Groypers to communists and liberals to fascists. It would be wrong to list his political ideology in the lead unless there's widespread reports or a direct confirmation that it was his motivation.
For instance, Reagan was shot because an insane dude was obsessed with Jodie Foster. Maybe Crooks had mental issues, maybe he was radicalized over time, we just don't know.
Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and there's no need to rush. Particularly on an article such as this. KlayCax (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean i'm not pushing for anything, just offering it as a reliable source that doesn't seem to be utilized as yet
but I also disagree with your implication of irrelevance in view of possible change of views (as a type of recency bias). I think that if some sort of radicalization took place in the final months or years of his life, what his "starting point" was remains quite relevant (especially in terms of whether the understood psychology was more like "zeal of the newly converted" or "reality tunneling" against a lifelong foundation) Donald Guy (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
if indeed his motivations are somehow later discovered to have also been apolitical/based fully in delusion, than I guess I'll agree it wasn't relevant, but right now that isn't the occam's razer assumption being applied either by the world or indeed the content of this article as it currently exists Donald Guy (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
We do not assume what will be determined in the future, and for recently deceased persons (and living persons, for that matter) we do not speculate, and we only report what is certain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
That is exactly right. Sources (including classmates!) can't agree on whether he's right, left, centrist, or apolitical. No claim should be in the article until it's verified.
We could easily be spreading false information + at most, we're just going by what classmates state, which is a low-quality source at best. KlayCax (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Once again, speculation is being added into the article, @Berchanhimez:. There's absolutely no certainty on whether his politics were right or left-leaning when he did it.
Nor, is there clear evidence of his motivations. Most political assassinations have had little to do with politics itself. This is even more so when it's been widely reported that he's a loner.
Vague comments from one single unidentified classmate - on an article like this, again - is exactly what we should not be doing. KlayCax (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
His (possible) evolving political ideology & possible radicalization definitely is notable. But we should wait. We're still in a "fog of uncertainty" and a lot of early stuff surrounding cases like this is later shown to be false.
Indisputable facts, such as his registration status as a Republican and donations, are the only thing that seems WP: DUE for now.
There's also been widespread reports that he was a loner. So perhaps, for instance, he saw it as a means of getting attention & spread chaos in a world that he saw fail him. KlayCax (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elspea756:. The claim wasn't from the Hindustan Times. It was from CNN. Classmates and reliable sources have given contradictory claims about his political views. It's massively WP: TOOSOON to claim that he was conservative. CNN states that there's strong evidence that "suggests he may have had divergent political leanings". Giving contradicting accounts from classmates (including those who claim he was "center-left", "centrist", "slightly right-leaning", and "definitely conservative") is the last thing we should do. Note that this page is probably going to be viewed by millions of people and there's a good chance that this information is completely inaccurate.
(As @Berchanhimez: noted.) KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, KlayCax, you removed sourced information that was sourced to The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer, and your edit summary included a link to https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/donald-trump-rally-shooter-thomas-crooks-familys-first-reaction-what-the-hell-is-101721006160628.html so according to your edit summary your claim seems to be definitely related to hindustantimes.com Your new suggestion that the sourced quotes from The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer have a "good chance" to be "completely inaccurate" seems to be unsupported by anything other than your own personal opinion. Do you have a source for your claims? Elspea756 (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hindustan Times is quoting CNN there. I was quoting it to get around the paywall. The problem with including it is that various classmates have variously described him as a hardcore conservative, center-leftist, centrist, slightly right of center, and apolitical during this interactions with him. That's entirely consistent with CNN's observation where they go on to note that it appears that "a review of public records suggests he may have had divergent political leanings" throughout his lifetime. Classmates also report that he was "socially awkward, nerdy, and frequently bullied throughout high school". Again, most political assassins are not motivated by politics, and there's been a widespread consensus among media sources that individuals shouldn't go jumping for what random classmates, initial reporting, and contradicting reports state, but wait for reliable sources to make a definite determination about what happened.
The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer are just reporting what several of the aforementioned students said. Not that he was. Massive difference. KlayCax (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This should be removed until a consensus is reached or a RFC is concluded. Tagging involved editors @Some1:, @TheXuitts:, @Elspea756:, @ZimZalaBim:.
Could you self-revert for now? KlayCax (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
What is it that you would like me to self-revert? (I don't believe I'm involved in this discussion.) Some1 (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Tagged you to prevent WP: CANVASS, @Some1:, but this paragraph One of Crooks's classmates estimated Crooks's political views as "slightly right-leaning". Another of Crooks's classmates said Crooks "definitely was conservative" and "no matter what, always stood his ground on the conservative side." that has been inserted into the article multiple times and then removed (including by me) and reinstated without consensus.
CNN notes that: a review of public records suggests he may have had divergent political leanings and that it seems likely that Crooks expressed contradicting, and diverging, political leanings in his life. The only consistent agreement among sources is that he was a "loner" who was "frequently bullied at school". Despite common perception, it is generally the case that political assassinations have nothing to do with politics at all, and despite the widespread speculation at the moment, this seems like a very plausible situation. Classmates - as mentioned above - have described him as taking various, seemingly contradicting stances (from being a hardcore conservative to center-left throughout his high school years. Many allege he wasn't political at all. There's no way to properly WP: WEIGHT this. A paragraph such as this is egregious considering that we're in the "fog of confusion" common in situations like this. Very little about his political leanings outside of hard facts, his registered political party and donations, should be mentioned for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
KlayCax, when you write that it is generally the case that political assassinations have nothing to do with politics at all, that is belied in US history by successful assassins John Wilkes Booth who was motivated by his allegiance to the Confederate States of America, and by Lee Harvey Oswald who considered himself a revolutionary communist who supported the Soviet Union and Castro's Cuba, and by Leon Czolgosz who killed William McKinley and was clearly motivated by anarchist political ideology. Sarah Jane Moore was motivated by New Left ideology. Lynette Fromm was motivated by extremist counterculture political ideology. When Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola attempted to assassinate Harry Truman in 1950, their motivation was Puerto Rican nationalism. We do not yet understand the motivation in this case, but your general comment is not supported by the facts, and downplaying the potential for a political motivation seems premature. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
A majority. Not a minority. It's obviously still possible that the shooter was motivated by politics. KlayCax (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The overwhelming majority of political assassinations throughout history have been motivated by politics. Also, nearly every classmate interviewed said he was conservative. 2600:1014:B0AD:E410:ECB7:8E9:539B:9608 (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely agree that the majority of political assassinations are motivated by politics. This is the case even if we're just talking about America.
BUT I don't think there's enough information to determine his specific politics, nor whether they played a role in the assissination. It appears some people have said he was conservative, others said indifferent to politics. You also have, as mentioned above, CNN saying a review of public records suggests he may have had divergent political leanings. Also, things like the fact that he was pro-gun could play a role in classmates considering him conservative, when being pro-gun is not an exclusively conservative/republican position. Same goes for some other issues some consider exclusively republican or conservative.
Then there's the fact that he donated to a progressive cause.
Then you also have reports by the FBI regarding his phone they broke into, where they found no motive, only google history of him looking up Trump, Biden, and information regarding the DNC convention (which further complicates determining his politics, I think).
I just think it's too early, and there's not enough information yet.
I'm new, feel free to tell me I did something wrong in this comment :), or if you have tips. Hella say hella (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
What do you think about revising the paragraph to say:

Some of Crooks's classmates stated that his political views were "slightly right-leaning"[1] or "conservative"[2]; one classmate remembered Crooks as being "not obviously political"; CNN noted that "a review of public records suggests he may have had divergent political leanings."[3]

Though if what his classmates say are insignificant, the paragraph could be removed per WP:ONUS, and people can start an RfC regarding it. Some1 (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The CNN report is the only one I can see as meeting the criteria of WP: DUE. But even that openly admits it is speculation. It is however a "high-criteria source" than what random classmates of his said. All of which have given contradicting answers that suggests that his political beliefs changed overtime. I think it should all be removed per WP: ONUS and WP: DUE.
Anything that suggests a political motivation (or against one) should be removed for now. Again, there's no harm in waiting, but there is in spreading incorrect information. KlayCax (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm in favor of removing it completely, @Some1:. Having it state that "some described him as conservative and some described him as slightly right-leaning and some described him as centrist and some described him as center-left and some described him as apolitical" is absolutely not something we should be doing. No motivation has been given by authorities and this comes across as speculation to me.
...Which is absolutely, again, not what we should be doing. KlayCax (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Most say he was a conservative, some say he didn't talk about politics. None say he was center-left. This is an unsourced claim and we've all chosen to take it as fact. Personisinsterest (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Everything in that article said he was conservative. NONE of these sources ever said anything about him being center-left or a centrist. I read all of them. Personisinsterest (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
What does "slightly right-leaning" mean in this case? What were those "government policy questions" that revealed Crooks as a conservative? There's too much subjectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
There are also reports that his parents are leftists, although they bought him a gun. His small donations to leftist groups just a objective episode, the editors don't need to overreact or make excuses for him. I think Wikipedia has been too biased in favor of one side for a long time and needs improvement. Cbls1911 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Excuse me but please give a reliable source positing his parents are "leftists". There has been in everything I've seen fairly consistent reporting that his mother identifies as a democrat (a thing few self-identified "leftists" do) and that his father self-identifies as a libertarian Donald Guy (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
There are three opinions here: 1 His father is a Libertarian and his mother is a Democrat. 2 His Father is a Republican and his Mother is a Democrat. 3 His parents are both Democrats. Cbls1911 (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
there does not appear to be a well-established wikipedian consensus on the matter, but I think it's reasonable to view the un-bylined reporting of Marca (newspaper), a daily sports focused tabloid from Spain, as less reliable on matters of US voter registration than local sources Donald Guy (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly possible that some editors are politically biased. They are using vague and contradictory claims from classmates as reliable sources of information, when as discussed, they're very much not and should not be included on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The lassmates were also divided on his statement. For example, divided opinions about whether he had been bullied. In addition, some people believe that he did not publicly express his personal stance, so he did not leave a deep impression, but someone think that he stands out from others in his stance. Cbls1911 (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
It's really astounding there's so much interest in 'which of the two' political parties he belonged to. The whole idea that someone has to align one way or the other just sums up the intellectual laziness of people today. There's no reason to commit the perpetuation of such atrocious reasoning beyond the habits of denying "third" parties from ever gaining a substantial platform. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This is all effectively WP:HEARSAY, individuals accounts of the subjects behaviors or activities years ago should have relatively little to no WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in this BLP as there is zero evidence that it bears any relevance to what he's notable for. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Whether you personally consider the comments hearsay doesn't really matter as long as news sources deemed credible by Wikipedia do find those same comments credible enough to cite.
It's outside the scope of a Wiki editor to determine what content in a cited article is true. Ereb0r (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The political views of a political assassin are certainly important, but indeed, there is no definitive information at this point except that he was a registered Republican [1]. So that can be included. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The fact that the paragraph about Crook's conservative views is still on the page is a clear and disgusting example of political bias from the editors. As stated several times before, reports of Crook's political views (along with if he was bullied or not) are inconsistent. There's also the fact that he could easily change his political views during or after High School. The only things that should be listed with his political activity is his registration and his donation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, I have removed that sentence. Some1 (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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

References

  1. ^ Jack, Healy; Baker, Mike; Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas; Benner, Katie (July 14, 2024). "Here's What Is Known About the Suspected Gunman". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 14, 2024. Retrieved July 14, 2024.
  2. ^ Rushing, Ryan W. Briggs | Max Marin | Ellie (2024-07-14). "Why Thomas Matthew Crooks tried to assassinate Donald Trump is a mystery to investigators and his ex-classmates". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 2024-07-15.
  3. ^ Chapman, Casey Tolan, Danny Freeman, Majlie de Puy Kamp, Curt Devine, Isabelle (14 July 2024). "What we know about the Trump rally gunman so far". CNN.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

To add to article

To add to this article: Crooks's cell phone showed that he researched Michigan mass shooter Ethan Crumbley as well as Crumbley's parents (who faced charges for their son's mass shooting). The current version of this article says only that Crooks had a photo of Crumbley on his cell phone, which isn't really the full story. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

No mentions regarding him mocking a Hispanic Trump-supporter in 2016

Of course, I'm not pushing original research to be set in this article, however I have became convinced that Crooks was a mentally-ill anti-government terrorist. Now, the article should NOT express this point whatsoever (unless the FBI uses that same diction), but there is an incident which can help others formulate a similar opinion as the FBI continue to investigate Crooks' motive. Unfortunately, most articles which cover this story were pumped out by Fox News and I'm aware Wikipedia does not permit Fox News to be used as a source, but here is a non-Fox News source which contains the following (crucial) details: https://www.newsweek.com/thomas-matthew-crooks-donald-trump-classmate-1926647. Essentially, back in 2016, a Hispanic student was questioned about why he supported Donald Trump by the gunman when they were both in 8th grade. The student responded that he thought Trump was a great president, but Crooks insinuated that he was stupid for this difference in opinion they had. But the article goes on to say that Crooks hated politicians in general. Had it not been Trump going to Butler, and instead Biden, he still would've tried carried out the shooting. This source basically verifies that Crooks was either anti-government or just thought modern Democratic and Republic politicians alike were, in his own words, "stupid." This makes Trump's shooting politically-motivated, but again, that's original research so we can't claim it is until the FBI says something. We SHOULD however mention this altercation between the gunman and this student in 8th grade during Trump's 2016 campaign, and I am not able to make this edit because I'm not "extended-confirmed" or whatever. This is huge, basically the first account of the gunman speaking about his political views in an attack that many are convinced have something to do with politics. MountainJew6150 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek is also generally not reliable on Wikipedia. See WP:NEWSWEEK. C F A 💬 00:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
We should not hold a 13-year-old child accountable for ANYTHING they say. WWGB (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The Anne Frank article just rolled its eyes at you. "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - AF at about that age. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Poor comparison. Regardless, the political inclinations of a 13 year old are about as solidified a warm jello. Anecdotal, but I know someone who went from worshipping Ayn Rand to believing the trees were conscious and doing reiki in that same time span EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this might be information that should be added somewhere in the article -- I'm new, so I don't know where :) --but I don't think it's as huge as you think. Sorry, but a 13 year old American kid in middle school is going to know very little about politics, and even if he had a strong opinion and/or understanding of politics at that age, it was eight years ago, and before he even got to high school, where your views really first begin to get challenged and evolve. I'd probably feel a lot different if this was a few years ago, post high school, but a 2016 era thirteen year old? He likely had quite the political journey over the last 8 years, which have been a pretty wild, unique era in American history/politics. It's no wonder it's being reported that he may have had divergent political leanings. Hella say hella (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Correction, I think this might be information that should be added somewhere in the article if it were from a reliable source*. Hella say hella (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

 Not done: This would be better suited on the main article in the reactions section. C F A 💬 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, that's spelled "wring out", not "ring out", obviously... ELSchissel (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Classmate statements regarding his political beliefs have been widely reported by a number of valid sources and should be added

I've been seeing people on here spread claims that his classmates have described him as having various political affiliations, and that some described him as conservative and some as a liberal. From what I can find, every single person interviewed thus far has either described him as conservative or that they didn't personally hear him talk about politics. One example via: (https://www.wesa.fm/courts-justice/2024-07-17/thomas-matthew-crooks-alleged-trump-shooter-kind-quiet-smart-conservative)

"There is also some evidence that he may have held conservative beliefs. One high school classmate remembers him standing alone to argue for conservative views in a social studies class. Another classmate said she believed he and his friends wore Trump shirts when Trump was running for office. In total, four people said they believed he had conservative beliefs, while none said they believed he was liberal or espoused some other ideology. Two people said they had never heard him talk about politics. One classmate said Crooks told him that he hated all the presidential candidates in 2016."

The main argument I've seen against adding the classmates statements for additional context is that they "contradict eachother" regarding which side his political views were on, but that does not seem to be the case unless anyone can provide sources that show this. Every source I've found regarding interviews of classmates who were aware of his political opinions all described him as conservative. These statements should be added for additional information, as numerous reliable sources have all reported that a number of his classmates described him as being conservative. Wikipedia editors should not be allowed to cherry pick what they want to add from reliable sources and ignore other reported information from the same source. The Guardian article sourced and the phrase "Recollections about Crooks' political views and high school experience vary considerably" is also extremely cherry picked and dubious at best, considering the entire article talks about people describing him as conservative. 2601:447:CE00:8AB0:879B:F030:31DF:D58E (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, articles have been released that state there is no evidence of him being bullied, and some classmates have contested this as well ex. (https://nypost.com/2024/07/20/us-news/trump-shooter-thomas-crooks-was-not-a-member-of-rifle-team-school-district/)
This contradicts the part of the wiki page where it states that classmates said he was bullied. Including statements from classmates that claim he was bullied, but ignoring the statements from classmates that described him as having conservative views does not make any sense and seems like a clear example of bias and cherry picking information. 2600:1014:B0B2:273D:45F4:1056:482C:4FAE (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
A few things:
1) This has been widely discussed multiple times throughout this article, it's probably better to reply to the section: Source suggestion / (more) classmate accounts regarding political leanings, opposed to opening up yet another section. The aforementioned section has great arguments for and against what you're saying here.
2) Neither of the two sources you included are considered WP:RSP. All sources in wiki are cherry picked :), that's how it's supposed to be.
3) To the best of my knowledge, reliable sources only name one student specifically saying he was "definitely conservative". I won't even get into how we don't even know what this student means by "definitely conservative". Some people think being pro-gun makes somebody definitely conservative, when that's not an exclusively conservative/republican position. Or how these students haven't been in contact with him in somewhere between 2 to 6 years ago. Also, most other classmates (albeit unnamed) say he was indifferent to politics (or his politics were unknown), and ALL the information we currently have indicate that he has, like CNN mentioned, "divergent political leanings".
4) You do have a point about there being conflicting opinions about whether or not he was bullied, which should probably be mentioned in the article. There is a video of him apparently being bullied, but to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been reported by a reliable source.
Again, I'd recommend voicing your concerns/opinions in the section I mentioned in point 1, where we could establish a consensus on whether or not this information should be added. 2601:646:4100:F6F0:C982:1506:875E:418C (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

More than an attempted assassination

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

These other crimes are mentioned both in the very first sentence, even before mentioning any assassination or Trump, and then later in the article. I think you're going to have to be more specific in your suggested edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Why the redaction Trade (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk archive

Why is the archive bot not working on this talk page? WWGB (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Something seems wrong with the bot, judging by its edit history. I've started a discussion at the technical section of the village pump, just to see if anyone has any insight. (I don't really know if that's the appropriate/ideal place, but I think it is.) GhostOfNoMeme 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Since the bot's performance is degraded and its creator is MIA (no edits for 2 years), I've replaced it with ClueBot III with the same archival settings. Never mind - the bot seems alive again, so I've reverted that change. Must've been a temporary issue. GhostOfNoMeme 11:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

File re: donation

Is displaying File:FEC Thomas Crooks Donation 202102049425215728 189746.pdf particularly helpful to readers? Can't we just add the claim without the photographic evidence? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is useful at this point. Can always be removed later. I just hope it won’t be replaced with a version that includes an actual address which at that point it must be removed. Bohbye (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's frivolous, needless, and extraneous, as if Wikipedians are cosplaying as historians or journalists, and reeks of scraping the bottom of the barrel for content, any content, merely because it's public domain. It goes against MOS:TEXTASIMAGES, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING and, as I argued earlier, we don't need to turn this or any article into a scrapbook of court documents, receipts, and voter registration records. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
It seems incredibly dumb. Are people seriously arguing for inclusion? Wikipedia articles are not an indiscriminate collection of everything possible to shove into them. SilverserenC 16:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Keeping the photographic evidence - i support that. It seems helpful. 2001:2020:30B:B280:2491:F40B:2C71:330E (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I support removing it. Just bloats the article. It's a matter of public record that he indeed made the donation, no need to provide photographic evidence of the actual document. Hella say hella (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I propose/support removal. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  • keep His political beliefs is the single most contested parts of his legacy and said donation have been mentioned in the news numerous times so it's within scope. It's not included simply because it's a document, it's included because it's directly related to the content of the article.--Trade (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    I guess I don't understand why photographic evidence needs to be added when the donation is already mentioned in two different spots within the article, including an entire paragraph that makes up more than half of the Political Activities section. Especially since the photo in itself provides no additional information. I'm new, so I might be misusing this, but keeping it kind of feels like WP:UNDUE Hella say hella (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued discussion welcome, but based on the comments above, I've removed the image for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Where did he live

The article should indicate where Crooks lived at the time he tried to shoot Trump. Surely this is known. WmDKing (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The article could use some clarification. It says he was "raised" in Bethel Park and that the "neighbourhood he lived in was described [...] as 'middle class' [...]" but never actually states where he lived before the shooting. It is not immediately clear to readers that he still lived with his parents in the neighbourhood he grew up in. C F A 💬 23:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Per this CBS article: "In his house he shared with his parents and sister, investigators seized over a dozen weapons, an explosive device, a secondary cellphone, a laptop, a hard drive and three USB flash drives." Hella say hella (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In spite of how hilarious this is, it should probably be removed since The Daily Beast isn't really considered to be a reliable source (though there's no consensus, see WP:DAILYBEAST). Given the high-profile nature of this article, we should probably err on the side of caution. Devchar (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. C F A 💬 22:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it should be on this page regardless of RS. What if his last action before shooting was going to the bathroom? its irrelevant. Bohbye (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. This shouldn't be included. It appears to be in the article for the sole purpose of comedy. KlayCax (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Parents'/sister's political views

Crooks was of legal majority when he committed his act. Why is it necessary to say how his parents and sister - other adults with free will - were registered to vote? I know there's the argument that the New York Times has reported this, but usually Wikipedia is loathe to even give the names of living relatives per WP:BLPPRIVACY, and this section is a motive/investigation section in all but name. Would we include what Harris and Klebold's parents thought of their school days? Would we include what Mark David Chapman's cousin thought of the Beatles? Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I consider this to be inappropriate trivia. Cullen328 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with your comparisons, but I think at this point in time their politics does not need to be included, but I guess the parent's profession as licensed professional counselors also does not need to be included using the same logic. I'd potentially change my mind if the attempted assassination was confirmed to be politically motivated, which at that point, such divergent politics of the people who raised him/he lived with may be worth including. Hella say hella (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
An assassination is by it's definition politically motivated Trade (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
That's not true at all. John Hinckley Jr, for example, tried to assassinate Reagan and was not politically motivated. Most assassinations are politically motivated, true, but not all. Currently, there's no evidence indicating this assassination attempt was politically motivated, but that may change in the future. Hella say hella (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
This. ^ KlayCax (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree it's inappropriate and violates WP:BLPPRIVACY. GhostOfNoMeme 14:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2024 (2)

Under Early Life and Education:

Edit from: “He joined the National Technical Honor Society in 2021 while in junior high school.”

To: “He joined the National Technical Honor Society in 2021 while a junior in high school.”


Note: He could not be in Jr high in 2021 and graduated from high school in 2022. 74.74.169.203 (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 14:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Political party is not necessary in infobox

Besides the obviously non-neutral rationale for including this in the infobox, it is not relevant to the assassination since the current motive is unclear [2]. For instance, the article for John Wilkes Booth lists his political party in the infobox because it is relevant to his motive. While this individual is a registered Republican, there are many uncertainties regarding his political beliefs and whether those were his motives. Bedrockbob (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, when there are less uncertainties than maybe we should add it back in this Wikipedia article. Zyxrq (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
John Wilkes Booth's political party wasn't relevant to his motive. In his career as an active supporter of the anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party, he had campaigned in favour of Henry Winter Davis who later became a radical Republican. By the time he assassinated Lincoln, he had converted to Catholicism showing that his views had changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Catholicism#B 2A00:23C6:E10C:3201:C84D:9D44:9CCB:9D37 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
John Wilkes Booth’s affiliation with the Know-Nothing Party is relevant to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln because, unlike this instance with the president being in the same party as his would-be assassin, it helps to contextualize his motivations. Booth's nativist and pro-slavery beliefs, influenced by the Know-Nothing ideology, fueled his perception of Lincoln as an existential threat to the political values he championed. Booth’s membership in the Know-Nothing Party reflects his deep-seated nativism and possibly racist ideologies. This nativist sentiment likely extended to a strong pro-slavery stance, as the Know-Nothing Party had members who were either indifferent to slavery or actively supported it to counteract the influence of immigrant populations. Bedrockbob (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the fact that he was registered as a republican and it has been reported by several media, it is justified to leave it there. Frankserafini87 (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Being a registered Republican is a very noisy measure, and relying on it alone risks giving undue weight. What happens in the future if it comes out that he was nonetheless a self-identified Democrat? 75.80.108.189 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
We're relying on what reliable sources say. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources also contradict this registration; additionally, political party in the infobox predominantly used only on BLPs for politicians. There are a lot of people who have BLPs on wikipedia, and they’re registered as one party or the other; yet this information is not included in the infobox — why should we include it here? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Do they? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
For a couple very relevant examples, John Hinckley Jr., Lee Harvey Oswald, Arthur Bremer.
If those don't justify a political party because it wasn't relevant to their motives, then I don't see why we should include one here until we know it was relevant. Demosthanos (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
There's no reliable source reporting his self-identified political affiliation. When you put that in the infobox, you run the risk of misleading people about this. Being a registered Republican is not considered determinative as to whether someone is a Republican. The fact that he's a registered Republican is adequately reported in the article with appropriate context. This box is, to me, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. KJKistner (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Being a registered Republican is exactly what makes someone a Republican
Cutelyaware (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm a registered Republican so I can have a vote in my state, but that's a technicality due to the closed primary nature of the system here. If I don't register Republican I don't realistically get a say in who represents us at all.
Voter registration records in closed primary states reflect which primary someone wants to participate in, that is all. Demosthanos (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Someone who voted for Nikky found 2A00:1370:8184:3421:DE09:E2EE:3300:21A4 (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It appears several editors disagree to it’s inclusion. I’m making a WP:BOLD edit and removing it. I suggest editors seek to find consensus for it in the infobox before reintroducing per WP:ONUS. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm making a bolder edit and reverting. The onus is on you to prove the sources contradict it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Aaaaand reverting myself because I don't want to sound contrarian. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
It ended up re-re-reverted. I appreciated you backing out, because the issue at hand isn't whether the sources contradict it, the issue is whether we know it's relevant enough to go into the infobox or if featuring it prominently violates WP:NPOV. As I linked in another comment, many assassins and would-be assassins in the US don't reference their political party because it wasn't relevant. Demosthanos (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m not going to get into an edit war over a WP:NPOV violation, but the editors reintroducing this are not new to wikipedia, they know better, and they know what WP:ONUS means. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
They're also wrong to do it, and not being new is irrelevant. Everyone here has a political slant of some kind and what I'm trying to do here is avoid having Wikipedia include information highlighted in the sidebar just because it's true.
John Hinckley Jr., Lee Harvey Oswald, and Arthur Bremer all lack a party affiliation in the sidebar. Placing it there brings that fact out of other context like the fact that he donated to other causes, giving a WP:POV. Demosthanos (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m not opposed to you removing it, but the odds are someone will just add it again. Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like locking doesn't actually work to force people to have a reasonable discussion on the talk page before getting into and winning edit wars. Demosthanos (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The page was mostly protected because of vandalism and unsourced additions by anonymous/new users. The page is subject to WP:CTOPS but there aren't actually any Arbitration Remedies in effect so I believe WP:1RR doesn't actually apply. Not entirely sure though. C F A 💬 02:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
PA is a closed primary state, so he registered as a Republican in order to vote against Trump in the Republican primary elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.110 (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no reason to include his political party affiliation - either in the infobox or the article - at this time, per WP:BREAKING and WP:BDP. When the dust settles, that can be discussed/added if/when his affiliation is relevant and confirmed. But as of now, the only information is speculation from people trying to get their 15 minutes of fame by talking to media, and of his registration for a primary that doesn't necessarily mean he affiliates with that party at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@TheXuitts:, please discuss and get consensus here instead of reverting without an edit summary. Some1 (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
there's also nothing to say there isn't any way the attribution isnt erronious. He's only been able to vote for ~one midterm and this much demonstrates he could be have just thought it was meaningless. While not probative of which partisan hacks he approved of best, some uncertainty exists for why he was supposedly a "registered republican." In some states or maybe all of them im not sure, you have to be a registered republican to vote in the primary. It's not open to the unaffiliated. Just this much could be the sole motive for why he was registered republican and donating democrat. For all anyone really knows at this point he could be an anti-partisan such as my self and he could be acting under my personal advice, or yours, or anyone elses. Or even much more likely, made to look like it. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Political party in the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is clear that Crooks' political party should not be stated in the infobox with the current information available. C F A 💬 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Yes

  • Weak yes - I have chosen to !vote yes primarily because reliable sources have emphasized Crooks' party registration in their coverage of him (it was one of the first things reported about him actually) and because shooting a political figure is more or less, though not necessarily, political, and it should be noted that this is subject to change as the investigation unravels. For example, I don't think whatever party John Hinckley Jr.'s party registration was (if any) would be infobox relevant because he shot Reagan for a non-political reason. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says to summarize "the key facts that appear in an article" but also to "exclude unnecessary content." At this time, I do believe Crooks being a registered Republican is a "key fact" based on the emphasis of this fact in most reliable sources. But, if it is declared by investigators and reliable sources that Crooks had no apparent political motivation for shooting Trump, it may become an unnecessary fact because the political affiliations of shooters and criminals who act without political motivations are typically not particularly relevant and thus are not subject to infobox inclusion. R. G. Checkers talk 00:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, our reliable sources have talked at length about the registration of Crooks as a Republican. As an infobox is a summary of article contents, this is a valid item to include given the breadth and quality of sources stating it. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes - we assign weight to information based on the weight given to that information by reliable sources, not what we feel is important. Crooks' Republican membership has been a focus of most of the reporting about him. Omitting it violates WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    This is not about whether to record any political links, activity or affiliations in the article, it is whether his status as a registered Republican voter is recorded in the infobox. I say yes to the former, but no to the latter as the link is too tenuous. Pincrete (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
    I think you (and others who have said similar things) are right - it is fact that he was a registered Republican but it's also complicated, and distilling that all down to "Republican" in the infobox is inaccurate enough to be misleading. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes - It has been established that he was a registered Republican, a fact prominently mentioned in several reliable media sources. Omitting this from the infobox would seem odd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankserafini87 (talk • contribs)

No

  • No—Every media source identifies his party registration but immediately follows it with the single political donation he's made, which is to a progressive cause. There is no way for that context to be included in the infobox, and highlighting the party alone without that context is slanting the perspective of Wikipedia relative to what the sources actually say. It's better for the information to be included in the body in the same format as the sources, with the full context, rather than making the party registration seem more important than the donation (which, again, the sources don't do, they give both equal weight). Demosthanos (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No Not really needed in the infobox at all even if there is a reliable source, and people can change their political views over time. Not everyone who is registered to that party votes for them.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No The current state of the evidence makes it unclear as to the extent of Crook’s affiliation with the Republican Party. As per the comment above by Demosthanos, including Republican registration in the summary box is misleading when presented without context. Given that the voting registration of other assassins is (correctly) not listed in their summary information, it is unusual to list that information here. Including party information in the summary box is therefore unusual and misleading. Summary box information in a biography should also be a summary of the person’s life. If this were the bio of the chairman of the RNC, then party affiliation would be a demonstrably significant part of his biography. But it’s not, and it isn’t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickArgall (talk • contribs) 01:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No - per MOS:INFOBOX The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. … The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Some infoboxes need to use more than a handful of fields, but information should be presented in a short format, wherever possible, and exclude unnecessary content —- There are a limited number of reasons for an infobox to have a political party listed and that’s when a subject’s political party would be of interest to readers. The subject of this article is not a politician and thus far reliable sources have only stated that he had registered as a republican; which is not the same as stated he was widely regarded or self-identified as one. And even if they did, it’s not clear how this individuals political affiliations have enough WP:WEIGHT to include in an infobox. I also want to be clear, if he had self identified or registered as a Democrat I would have the same viewpoint. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No Not needed in an info box and it is unclear how strong Mr. Crooks’ affiliation with the Republicans was. Anyone can register as a Democrat or a Republican but it really doesn’t mean much. Frank Anchor 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No In addition to above arguments, a single line in an infobox cannot capture the seemingly contradictory nature of Crooks' political beliefs. Readers solely reading the infobox and leaving (as is the infoboxen purpose), would be misled instead of informed. Ca talk to me! 02:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No or certainly, not yet. The extent of his affiliation, and whether his affiliation is relevant to the shooting is not yet clear. Every media source identifies his party registration but immediately follows it with the single political donation he's made, which is to a progressive cause. There is no way for that context to be included in the infobox, and highlighting the party alone without that context is slanting the perspective of Wikipedia relative to what the sources actually say. per Demosthanos.Pincrete (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No, seems to be a contentious fact.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No until motive determined, Creates the potential for readers to misinterpret the inclusion of Crooks's party affiliation as an implicit suggestion that his political registration had a direct influence on his actions. This might perpetuate a misleading narrative, especially if the motivations behind the incident remain unclear or non-political. Bedrockbob (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No, Assuming this is fact, it doesn't tell us enough about him.It only means at some point in his brief life he was registered as a Republican. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No, not yet, because it is currently unclear whether this is a key fact. Senorangel (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No per Ca. The subject evidently had complicated political affiliations, and while part of that picture is that he was a registered Republican, having that one word in the infobox doesn't effectively summarize all of the information available. It should be omitted from the infobox and discussed in detail in the article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No - Ivan and others have summarized my views very concisely. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No (changed !vote from Yes) - It's not clear his party registration, which I agree is not necessarily always indicative of what party one really leans too, has yet to be established as significant. It also creates a NPOV concern because he's also contributed to Democrats and that fact appears to be as significant in reliable sources as his party registration; so, including his party without a clear way of conveying the donation would be undue emphasis. R. G. Checkers talk 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • No, not at this time. Remove until it's clearer as to what his motives were, and decide if Crooks' party registration is relevant. SWinxy (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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.

Clothing brand of perpetrator

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

I removed it. That kind of information does not belong on Wikipedia. If a reliable secondary source summarises his interest in the brand and makes a connection to the incident, then it would be appropriate. Otherwise it's as informative as what he ate for breakfast on the day. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I hadn't seen this discussion, but I think the clothing is relevant and worth including. It is pertinent information, particularly as much of the focus will inevitably be on US gun control laws and gun culture in the aftermath of this event. The fact he performed this act in "pro-gun" attire seems relevant enough that it's discussed in a number of reliable sources (BBC, NYT, Telegraph, Sky News, Newsweek, Washington Times, etc.) all of which are referenced in the article. It is also included in the main article, attempted assassination of Donald Trump. It should stay. GhostOfNoMeme 10:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. This isnt the type of aticle that should omitt any details at all. It's relivance could be used prejudicialy as any content could. It could also be used excessively such as to show evidence the assassin had planned on being found with it. Or it could even had been used by the assassin just to blend in better. Assassination 101 use a disguise. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Yes, yours is a sensible argument for altering the wording (but not IMO for outright removal) — I think "appeared to show" may be the most suitable wording for the article. However I also somewhat doubt the language used by most sources is going to change. I don't think "appears to" in this instance relates to uncertainty on the part of journalists, but is simply the appropriate construction for describing clothing after having reviewed photographs. Considering the number of reliable sources covering the clothing (including a number of articles dedicated solely to it) it is absolutely worth keeping, in my view, as a piece of information clearly considered relevant by a majority of sources covering Crooks. But yeah — the wording may benefit from a tweak. GhostOfNoMeme 11:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
GhostOfNoMeme, looking at the five references at the end of that sentence talking about the t-shirt, three of the sources Sky News, BBC and Associated Press don't even mention a t-shirt at all. The Telegraph article briefly mentions it, but is not dedicated solely to it, so that leaves WP:NEWSWEEK, which goes into more detail about Matt Carriker, than it does Crooks.
In my view, this is a clear example of WP:RECENTISM, an editor reads something and thinks it should be included in the article, without actually knowing if the info is really that relevant, notable or significant. And the justification for inclusion is always, welp, reliable sources are reporting it, so we must report it too. Just because something can be sourced, doesn't automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion. Is the brand of his t-shirt, or his shorts or his shoes relevant, it's highly unlikely that his choice of a t-shirt would pass the WP:10YEARTEST. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I updated the Sky News reference to the correct page. The other two – BBC and AP – do clearly mention the t-shirt (you linked the archival pages; perhaps they ought to be updated?). Personally, I'm still of the opinion it merits inclusion, but perhaps I'm in the minority with this. GhostOfNoMeme 13:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we have to mention the exact name of the brand. The sources do this and evidently believe it is part of the information to be given to the public. Mhorg (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the correct links, yes I see there is a brief mention in both of those articles. Time will tell if it will still be suitable for inclusion if his choice of clothing receives sustained coverage. But to me, right now, it just looks like WP:RSBREAKING, which is always a problem with these types of articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
With some hindsight, I think you're probably correct. When it was one of the few solid pieces of information we had, it seemed notable enough. Looking at the facts and the (current) in-depth coverage, I don't think it should have been included. I always find it a bit tricky when it comes to breaking events. GhostOfNoMeme 11:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
First party source confirms it was their actual shirt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAnvLjavON0) 2603:6011:A600:84B1:C42C:16AC:C92C:31D9 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That is not a reliable source. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Even if true, why does it matter? Unless there's a link between the shooter, or his actions, and the Youtuber, it makes zero sense to add it. Unless I'm missing something.
Also, as someone mentioned above, just bec. a reliable source mentions it, doesn't mean we need to add it. Hella say hella (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump Ear Injury

"He hit Trump's ear and killed one attendee while critically injuring two others before being killed by the Secret Service Counter Assault Team."

This is not confirmed and should be changed or "citation needed" added. Jessejericho (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see the lengthy discussions on Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Reliable sources are reporting he was shot in the ear. The citation that supports the claim, this BBC article, clearly states that "a gunman shot Trump in the ear". C F A 💬 14:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It absolutely has been confirmed multiple times, across multiple reliable sources, with only a small amount of (generally)unreliable sources saying otherwise. Hella say hella (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It's confirmed by a significant number of reliable sources. No reputable source is questioning that he was shot in the ear. In fact, it's repeatedly featured in lists of misinformation and baseless conspiracy theories by mainstream news outlets and was debunked in a fact check by Snopes. Hell, there's a photo of the bullet passing his head and another of his bloodied hand he'd raised to his ear seconds later... GhostOfNoMeme 22:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What is Mathew’s religion?

If Mathew had a Muslim upbringing - even if he wasn’t a practicing one - there is no chance referring to this fact would be missing from his biography. His early life should at minimum allude to his parent’s religion. 2600:100C:B2A4:7D06:E035:159C:774A:78B (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I cannnot find any sources mentioning his (or his parents') religion. C F A 💬 17:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
There aren't strong sources to what his Matthew religion was, I think he maybe was an Atheist/Agnostic or non-practicing Judaist. MountainEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Crooks grandfather was Lutheran- no Judaism

https://www.neelyfuneralhome.com/obituary/Norman-Crooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.81.45 (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Well in that case

DUPLICATE DISCUSSION
You can discuss the merge at #Merge discussion. No need to start new sections. C F A 💬 18:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

If we merge Thomas Matthew Crooks with the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, we should also merge John Hinckley Jr. with the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. NickDavis69 (talk) 08:49, 23 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.

Merge

WP:SNOW-opposed, with editors pointing to WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E (both of which suggest separate articles for individuals with large roles in significant events, specifically citing assassins/would-be-assassins as examples) and the three reasons listed in WP:NOMERGE. Levivich (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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 firmly believe a merge into Assassination attempt of Donald Trump is necessary. The AFD initially made was closed prematurely closed after just five and a half hours despite only having 64% support for outright keep, with many calling for a merge. A DRV was then procedurally closed due to sock puppetry and two more AFDs were procedurally closed saying that the DRV would need to be challenged. Five days later, I still believe this should be merged - WP:SIZERULE says this should be merged, and this article creation is a clear case of Wp:DELAY needing to be applied. Any relevant information can be merged into the assassination attempt article, there is a lot of trivia here, and considering how long it took for Kyle Rittenhouse to get an article in a more significant shooting, it’s clear that an article just a week after the event is too premature. This is not like Lee Harvey Oswald in the slightest bit, considering how the assassination was unsuccessful, and as the perpetrator died, there will be no trail.

Finally, I will note if the article wasn’t protected, I would’ve added a merge tag to the articles involved. 108.58.27.76 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. If we’re going to merge the firefighters article; who by all accounts achieved more in his lifetime than this guy ever did/will; keeping it is a travesty. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey, CFA, we may have a fourth AfD to look forward to! Joy of joys. Hasn't it been barely 7 days since the last AfD closed? And how does WP:SIZERULE apply here, exactly? GhostOfNoMeme 12:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
We don't need to create another AfD; instead, editors could propose a WP:MERGE on the talk page. Comparing this Thomas Matthew Crooks article with what's on Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator, everything on this article seems duplicative. Some1 (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge discussions have been happening on the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump page about turning other sections into separate articles (and we already have Trump raised-fist photographs). We don't need to make the page even longer by needlessly merging this article into it.
Think about what the readers want: They already know the name of the shooter. They're expecting to find a biography on him, with an infobox, picture, etc. Just look at the page views — the main article has 1.8 million total views. This article only has 0.2 million less. In fact, since the 16th, this article has been consistently averaging about 30 000 more views a day than the main article. Merging this will just make things more confusing for readers.
There have already been 3 AfDs and a DRV. There should be a moratorium on AfDs and merge discussions for a year, or at least until FBI finishes their investigation, so we can determine if an article is really necessary after all the dust has settled. C F A 💬 14:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe what Some1 and other editors are pointing out is that there is nothing on this page that isn’t already on the AAoDT page. I don’t support a moratorium, OP calls out some significant procedural shenanigans that didn’t give this process ample time to discuss. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Complaints about "procedural shenanigans" belong in a deletion review, no? Which we had. I don't think the solution is endlessly creating new AfDs or merge discussions, especially when barely a week has passed. Is the matter so urgent it can't wait a few months until things have settled down and we can all benefit from a clearer view? GhostOfNoMeme 15:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
DRV was closed rather quickly due to SOCK. I would argue this article should be merged until there’s enough material available for it to stand on its own. Currently, it’s only served as a platform for the same arguments around what is DUE or reliable across two different talk pages. That’s just my opinion based on the AfDs and DRVs being closed faster than it takes to drive across an average sized State in the US. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Well... aside from the infobox, picture, and half the biography, sure. Either way, that sounds like a problem that should be resolved on the main page. The section should just be trimmed so it doesn't duplicate this article. The FBI hasn't finished their investigation yet. There will obviously be more info to come. Starting another AfD after just a week, when we all know what the result will be, is a waste of time. I suppose you can open one if you want, though. C F A 💬 15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m definitely interested in hearing what other editors think before we go down that route. It’s going to be months if not years before anything is officially released by the FBI; assuming we get anything at all. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The infobox and his picture could be added to the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Perpetrator if merged. The other random stuff in his biography that's not included in the Perpetrator section of the assassination article (his parents' occupation, that he apparently enjoyed playing chess and video games, that he won a "star award" etc.) are pretty much insignificant. And I don't believe anyone here is suggesting another AfD (I'm certainly not). But editors could propose a WP:MERGE request, similar to the one that just happened with Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump#Proposed merge of Corey Comperatore into Attempted assassination of Donald_Trump. Some1 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with @CFA, the main page's section on Crooks should just be trimmed, and this page should remain for the time being. For example, the entire second paragraph in the main page's section on Crooks should just be removed in my opinion. The remaining three paragraphs should be trimmed/cleaned up into just two paragraphs. Hella say hella (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The idea of a redirect/merge was discussed extensively in the first AfD, was it not? Whether or not you agree with the closure or the outcome, the consensus to Keep was clear. I know WP:6MONTHS isn't policy, and you aren't suggesting a new AfD, but that discussion only took place 7 days ago. We should at least let some actual time pass. GhostOfNoMeme 15:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Fine by me as long as all biographical information is transferred over. Neverendingjoke (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Literally every attempted assassination attempt in american history has its own article for the attempted assassin. Ridiculous merge attempt 2600:1016:B009:3A46:C494:9D4B:90C0:FDD3 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge discussion

  • Oppose : that article could grow in coming weeks. this request is premature because its still an active investigation Astropulse (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is lengthy, well-cited and as it is based on a recent event is anticipated to grow larger as more details emerge. It's length will make an already long article even longer. User:WoodElf 00:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Merge. Every AFD and DRV was a mess of procedural implications, so we never had a clean discussion of the issue. There is significant trivia in this article and the assassination article that could be trimmed. This article duplicates the other article and is an unnecessary WP:CFORK. And proposals to wait for an FBI investigation are frivolous since those may never occur, especially with minimal damage to Trump occurring. 108.58.27.76 (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    And consensus to keep in AFD was not clear; it was closed inappropriately early with less then 2/3 support, a DRV was closed with only 2/3 support due to sock puppetry and other AFDs were prematurely closed due to too many, but this is a merge discussion so it’s a little different. No one is proposing outright deletion, but it should not be a stand alone article.108.58.27.76 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Instead of merging, the main page's section on Crook's should just be trimmed down to only two paragraphs (from current 4 paragraphs), and Crook's own page should continue to be updated as additional information regarding his life, politics, how he planned the assassination, motive, etc. comes out. It's not as if information regarding Crook has stopped, and we could just sum up his life into a little section on the main page: each day new information comes out worthwhile documenting in his own page. It also appears a merge has been declined multiple times already. Hella say hella (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per my comments above. Merging makes this series unnecessarily complicated for readers and the main article is long enough. We have already split off the main article into two other articles (Timeline of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump and Trump raised-fist photographs). There was recently discussion on the talk page about splitting it into even more articles. This should be no exception. Readers are evidently looking for a biography: As I mentioned above, since the 16th, this article has actually been consistently averaging about 30 000 more views than the main article. WP:RFORK doesn't make a whole lot of sense here. Right at the top of WP:CFORK it says: "As articles grow, editors are encouraged to create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material, to make articles clearer and easier to manage." That is exactly the point of this article; it's a related, but distinct subject that keeps information clear for readers, especially those who may have come from Google looking for a biography specifically about Crooks. WP:BIO1E also does not apply here because "the event [was] highly significant, and the individual's role within it [was] a large one". C F A 💬 23:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    Well, since we’re here now. Could you please add a merge tag to the AAoDT article as well (I’m unfamiliar with the tag format to redirect editors here, or if it’s even possible). TYIA. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, done in this edit. C F A 💬 23:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Per comments above, I share the same concern around the lack of sufficient time for this discussion to form a solid consensus. Currently, much of the content seeking to be introduced about the shooters childhood background is WP:TRIVIA, generally unreliable, and most of it doesn’t relate to the event he is notable for. We’ve had numerous concurrent and redundant discussions regarding duplicative content across the two articles because there is very little that makes this article stand apart, wasting editors time, and there is zero evidence that will change any time soon. The would-be assassins name can be a redirect to solve concerns regarding readers wanting to learn more about the perpetrator. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
    A redirect will not show up on Google, which is where the majority of readers are coming from. It will make readers wade through the long main article just to get to the content they're looking for about Crooks. A situation like this is what content forks are for. Remember, the readers should be put first. Overcomplicating things for them because we don't want to update a summary on the main article goes against that. C F A 💬 23:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge - We don't get very many presidential assassins on Wikipedia and trying to assassinate a former POTUS is definitely going to earn you a place in history. His article is notable, relevant, historical, and has exceptionally high encyclopedic value. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    100% agree. Electricmaster (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Don't Merge - It was indeed decided that this is notable for inclusion per policy. Please drop the stick and let the horse rest in peace. BarntToust (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No, it isn't necessary. Major assassins have had their own articles and I'm pretty sure we've mulled over this possibility already. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not neccesarry since attemped assassins of presidents or former presidents have an article, and merging it into the assassination attempt article will make it too long to read comfortably. 2601:646:8003:6B20:F819:E192:5DCA:B36F (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. There is simply too much relevant information about TMC that should be on Wikipedia but wouldn't fit in the main article. People want to know what his life was like, what former classmates thought of him, what political activities he engaged in, that his phone showed that he looked up information about other public figures, etc. As the investigation continues the amount of information on him will just grow and grow. Woozybydefault (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this is pretty straightforward. Crooks' actions, though unsuccessful, have had massive ramifications. It will also allow the opportunity to go more in depth regarding his life/motives/plan/etc than just in the normal article. Electricmaster (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose TMC was an attempted assassin, especially since he died and recieved a gunshot wound to the head, I firmly oppose merging. 2601:646:8003:6B20:F819:E192:5DCA:B36F (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The subject has reached WP:GNG, that of WP:SIGCOV beyond WP:BLP1E. While most of the coverage is naturally surrounding his involvement in the shooting, there is otherwise SIGCOV in other areas, such as profiles on him as an individual [3] or otherwise his education.[4][5]. The other reason to merge would be in order to have all information in the same place, on the assassination page (that isn't WP:TOOBIG yet), however a lot of the information (his background and political activities) would not necessarily be DUE in that article. Also to note this article has had more views in recent days than the assassination article, very much indicating the standalone is useful for readers who are searching more for a background on the perpetrator, rather than the event itself.[6] And finally, the three recent deletion discussions should indicate there is already consensus for this article to remain as his, prior to further SIGCOV since then, without the consensus to merge the article (which would would have been the likely alternative to keep in the AfD). Recommend a WP:SNOW close to avoid any further WP:WASTEOFTIME. CNC (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Last time(s) we had a snow close, some people claimed it was closed inappropriately. Which is why we're having this discussion again. I think it's best to let this run its course for a week so people stop reopening this discussion, even though consensus has been and is clear. C F A 💬 14:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    I agree. Even though the consensus is already overwhelming, we should allow this discussion to continue - if only to end the WP:WHINING. GhostOfNoMeme 16:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    In the close review it was noted that "this DRV is not going to overturn the SNOW close in the short term".[7] I see no reason why this time would be any different. Understandably it the close were to be challenged for closing too early, then it wouldn't save a waste of time but instead encourage further whining. That said, this discussion has been open for nearly two days, compared to the 5 hours of the previous AfD that was challenged, so still not opposed to a snow close overall. CNC (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose:don’t merge he’s notable and the size of the article will grow properly as more information comes out about him Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To much detail here for the event article, and the detail that is here is okay.—Alalch E. 15:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: There's already plenty of sources to warrant this being a separate article, and as investigations are ongoing about his past and motivations, it will keep growing. Unnamed anon (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support This guy isn't as notable as Lee Harvey Oswald or John Hinckley Jr. Felicia (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support as he's basically a random dude who only got coverage as he attempted to assassinate the president, and any hope of notability has been smashed when he was killed by Secret Service agents. Unless the FBI investigations reveals that he isn't just some random dude, he's really not notable. OhHaiMark (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Meets WP:GNG, plenty of WP:SIGCOV of him as an individual. Three previous AfDs with very clear consensuses against deletion or merging. As per WP:BLP1E: "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." Crooks's assassination attempt was significant, and his role is both substantial and well documented in a great many reliable sources. Very plainly merits its own article, in my view. GhostOfNoMeme 16:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wiki articles are not created for "good" or "bad" people. The argument that an article on TMC as an individual emboldens/ supports his actions fly's in the face of the reason we have wikipedia, to document historical, noteworthy, and relevant peoples of history. Those three qualities are all satisfied when it comes to Thomas Mathew Crooks. Monological (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is clearly coverage of Mr. Crooks that goes past WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E to warrant a standalone article. I would support a reduction of content on this person's section on the attempted assassination page. Frank Anchor 17:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BLP1E and most major sources have dedicated articles on him. IP75 (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose An attempted assassination of a US president is clearly notable, even if the attempt failed. Normally, a major participant in a notable event is, for that reason, notable.—Finell 18:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Actions alone do not make a person worthy of a wiki article; countless assassins of modern figures do not have wikipedia articles. Pretty clearly this article can fit within the assassination article's section on Crooks, with a lot of details bordering on needless trivia worthy of being cut. Yeoutie (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    You say countless assassins of modern figures do not have wikipedia articles but essentially every perpetrator of a serious assassination attempt against a US president has their own article. John Hinckley, Jr. has his own article (and is explicitly mentioned in WP:BLP1E for when someone should have their own article). John Schrank has his own article. Francisco Martin Duran has an article just for firing shots at the White House in '94 in an attempt to kill Clinton. The same goes for every successful assassin: James A. Garfield, John Wilkes Booth, Leon Czolgosz, Lee Harvey Oswald. Nearly killing a former US president is about as notable as it gets. GhostOfNoMeme 22:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    The difference between Crooks and the other perpetrators you listed is that Crooks was killed almost immediately after his attempt. The other perps were apprehended alive (later tried, convicted, executed, etc.), or in Booth's case, was the subject of a pursuit and had a standoff, or in Oswald's case, murdered. Some1 (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    This is true, but I don't see how it makes any real difference. Interest and coverage don't diminish simply because the perpetrator was killed. It's often the opposite, if anything. You could argue that the absence of legal proceedings against the perpetrator mean there's less to write about or be covered by the news, but the trial sections of John Schrank and Francisco Martin Duran are only 5 and 3 paragraphs long, respectively; the sections covering their life prior to the assassination are larger. GhostOfNoMeme 23:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I don't think the information can all be included in the main article. R. G. Checkers talk 19:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The assasination article is very long, and this guy is notable for trying to kill a former president who was running for a second term. SeanWheeler (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose We rightfully have separate articles on other assassins who attempted to/succeeded in assassinating sitting or former U.S. presidents. With the amount of info available on this one, I don't think it would be wise to merge all of that into this page. Keivan.fTalk 23:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Crooks is now inherently notable. Maximilian775 (talk)
  • Oppose This article can contain more information than could comfortably fit on the main article, so I oppose a merge. Obviously it is unfortunate that someone can become notable in such fashion, but failed assassins of prominent figures often do end up being independently notable. See Christopher John Lewis, whose crimes were not widely reported until decades after he tried to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II.LM2000 (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arthur Bremer, Sara Jane Moore, and Squeaky Fromme all have articles, and only one of them actually shot their subject, nonfatally. If George Wallace's assailant has an article, why would Crooks get a pass? Just grow the article as more info emerges. fishhead64 (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Support to MERGE, those citing WP:BLP1E are citing it as an oppose !vote, but in reality, it supports a strong MERGE of this Thomas Crooks article into the assassination of Donald Trump article. That article should just have a Thomas Crooks section, a lengthy one if determined to be needed, but this page should only exist as a redirect. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
    How does it "support a strong merge"? Was "the event not significant or the individual's role not substantial or not well documented"? The answer is a very strong no. The event was very significant — there is still continuous in-depth coverage more than a week later. Crooks' role was obviously "substantial" as the perpetrator. And it has probably been the most well-documented event of the year. The BIO1E argument makes zero sense to me. C F A 💬 16:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks § Related discussion
 – CNC (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
No, WP:BLP1E plainly supports the existence of this article. See the 3rd condition, as has been repeatedly highlighted by many editors throughout these discussions. Otherwise be prepared to explain your reasoning, please. GhostOfNoMeme 19:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks § Merge discussion
 – CNC (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm also not understanding something. There's an discussion to not include the shooters name (and link to this page) on Donald Trump's section on the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, and I don't quite understand why? As I've said, I'm new, and still trying to understand everything, so sorry if this is not the place to ask that. Hella say hella (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

What is and isn't included on that page is significantly different than say Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. For starters a bit of background context could be useful here. The Donald Trump article at 16,000 words is WP:TOOBIG. That alone isn't enough to explain the exclusion of Crooks' name in the article, but it should provide some context that only essential information should be included, and that the article needs further spliting/trimming rather than more content added. This at minimum helps to explain the very short summary documenting the assassination attempt, as opposed to something more substantial (like in this article). As for why the name is excluded, this would be based on "is including the shooter's name directly relevant to the Trump article?" Ie is it directly relevant to Trump? The answer is probably not. There was a shooter, and his article is linked, but including his name doesn't appear to benefit the article. CNC (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Awesome, I very much appreciate your breakdown. I understand now :). Hella say hella (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Your welcome, that's just my interpretation of the discussion from somehow who's indifferent about the inclusion or not... I'm sure there is otherwise plenty of reasoning for arguments on both sides, even if difficult to find. CNC (talk) 18:55, 23 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 22 July 2024

I think the reported encounter with law enforcement right before shooting should be included. This is included in the full article in the second paragraph of the SHOOTING section ChocolateCharcuterieBoard (talk) 04:08, 22 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. Charliehdb (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Add (or paraphrase) “Butler Township police officer attempted to climb to the roof of the building in search of the Crooks. Crooks spotted the officer while the officer's hands were clinging to the edge of the roof and aimed his rifle at the officer, at which point the officer let go, falling 8 feet (2.4 m) to the ground and severely injuring his ankle. Crooks undertook the assassination attempt immediately following the confrontation with the officer,” from the main article on Trumps assassination attempt to this articles section SHOOTING directly after “ He climbed atop a building that was being used by police as a staging area.” Based off of https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/butler-township-officer-encountered-trump-rally-shooter-on-roof-butler-county-sheriff-says/ ChocolateCharcuterieBoard (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that's better to stay in the main assassination article; I don't see a reason for a detailed breakdown here. – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 14:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
While it’s not super necessary to know for the main assassination, it’s very relevant to being one of the most significant actions he’s made as a person. With anyone, you’d think pointing a gun at an officer is probably pretty insightful on their state of mind. The injuries the officer sustained also makes him a victim as well. I’d almost say it’s even more necessary to be stated here than on the main article.
Would it be better if I summarized it to be more of a brief mention? For example, “A Butler Township Police officer encountered Crooks while climbing up the building. Crooks pointed his gun at the officer, causing him to fall off of the building and sustaining injuries. Crooks opened fire immediately after.” ChocolateCharcuterieBoard (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

I think that the sentence "Crooks had a rarely-used account on Discord, a social media platform." is very unnecessary. It is as random as saying that he had a facebook account, or a youtube account, or a twitter account, etc. Just saying that he had an account on some social media site/app that he barely ever used doesn't tell us anything about him. I would understand if it was a specific app that would indicate his political leanings (like for example "Truth Social" which is mostly used by conservatives), but Discord just doesn't. Konim96 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

At the time of this request, there is no mention of Discord anywhere in the article. Are you sure you aren't looking at an older revision? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
 Resolved Whew, that took a bit. Added at 17:28 UTC on the 14th and Removed at 18:47 UTC on the same day. Seems in that time there were two copies of the article made during that time that exist online. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments about uncertainty of political leanings

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

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

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

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

thats not a bad idea IMO NAADAAN (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
should be "beliefs", of course. Believes is a whole 'nother word form of fish. ELSchissel (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I came here to comment on this. "Described as right leaning" has no source associated with it and every report I've read says that those interviewed so far didn't know his opinions on politics. We know his dad was a libertarian and his mom a Democrat and that he's a registered Republican who donated to Democratic causes in the past. It's all very muddled and uncertain and the existing article doesn't make that clear enough. Demosthanos (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this. How is the comment about "right-leaning" still up when there isn't any source that's stated that? All we know is that he was a registered Republican. Being registered to a party and having those beliefs are two different thigns. Twinbros04 (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I added the right leaning part, it was in the NYT article. A former classmate said he was. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I can't get past the NYT paywall, but the other things classmates said about him was he was a loner who didn't talk to anyone. In light of that, a single classmate's report that he's "slightly" right-leaning doesn't seem to justify the intro saying that he was "described as right leaning" without qualifiers about the source or the adverb used by the student.
It looks like that no longer exists in the intro and the Political Activities section reads fine to me now, so I'm not too worried, just wanted to make sure that we didn't accidentally fan flames. Demosthanos (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, NYT is a left-leaning journal and not a reliable source to this case. Wikiuserpedia96 (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Wikiuserpedia96 perhaps you should review WP:RSP and WP:YESPOV. The NYT is certainly a reliable source here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
NYT is left-leaning by far-right standards. What they are is a company first and foremost. ELSchissel (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:BIASED. Sources are not required to be objective or non-biased. If you want to start a discussion regarding The New York Times's reliability, you can do so at WP:RSN. Please be aware that this has been discussed many (46!) times (see WP:NYT). C F A 💬 00:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it’s fine to say that he’s a registered Republican who contributed to a Democratic PAC. That’s been widely reported. However, Idk if there’s enough evidence to say that he’s right-leaning. It could be mentioned that 1 former classmate described him as slightly leaning to the right or that could be omitted from the intro. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the intro is missing both "slightly" and the fact that a single classmate is the source. That needs to be called out to avoid feeding speculation. Demosthanos (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

As of now there is the statement of two classmates suggesting that while in school he may very well have been right-leaning, but one of those is explicitly dated as in 8th grade (which would have been 2017-2018). I do think that that date should be called out in Wikipedia's quote, because that's an awful lot of time during an awfully critical age window for things to change.
I'm open to him having been right-leaning, but I don't think anyone benefits from Wikipedia seeming to come down one way or the other before we get more details, which means that the facts should be transcribed as precisely as they are in the sources. Demosthanos (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
It's worth considering that high schoolers do not necessarily have the most sophisticated grasp of ideology, and may have been stereotyping based on his affinity for guns or painting libertarian beliefs with a broad brush. A claim that he is "right-leaning" definitely needs qualifications. 38.49.79.101 (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Most *people* don't have sophisticated or coherent ideologies, that doesn't mean they aren't motivated in some way by them, or by group identity with one party or movement or another. I think it's reasonable to include, but once there's more clarity. 2600:1700:8D70:1490:7068:36EA:88DB:364 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Must have been some loud arguments in the shooter's family home, considering all the Trump signs there. ELSchissel (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be nevertheless mentioned that schoolmates said he expressed conservative views, as mentioned here: Inquirer. --2A02:560:5491:6700:1944:8A14:9F82:145A (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If the shooting was politically motivated, views and donations may be relevant. If he was psychotic his political views and donations should be a lot less relevant. We do not (yet) know his motivation, and his schoolmates opinions (speculations?) is a bad source for Wikipedia even if reported by a respected journalist. Speculating about his political views insinuates a political motivation, and such speculations is a job for the press, not for Wikipedia. Markuswestermoen (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't know yet even if his target was the man who was actually killed, because we know fairly little from independent sources, compared to previous incidents with things in common with this one in living memory... ELSchissel (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
So ... he hit Trump's ear as a mere by-product of trying to kill the fireman? Trump was just an obstacle in the way?2A00:23C6:C42F:3701:D5F9:ABF8:4732:AF92 (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Gab Account

Seems like the comments he made on his gab account shed further light on his political views and would be relevant. Would someone care to add this information? Its being discussed and screenshots are provided here: https://x.com/BasedTorba/status/1816180238918824255?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw 67.176.231.225 (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 No - X is not a reliable source. And besides, the tweet clearly says - We are unable to confirm that the account in question actually belonged to him. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is possibly the only source less reliable than X, so there's some irony.
We're unable to confirm pretty much anything in this article but I see wiki still bends the truth to fit the narrative. 67.176.231.225 (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, neither is Twitter. Sources documenting these claims such as WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYMAIL are otherwise generally unreliable. I only found WP:DAILYDOT [8] and WP:DAILYBEAST [9] reporting on this which is far from ideal as they are only marginally reliable. There is no doubt a good reason why generally reliable sources haven't covered this, likely because the claim itself is far from reliable and based on unverified speculation. CNC (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
"The claim could not be immediately verified" @CommunityNotesContributor:. KlayCax (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

WP: UNDUE mention of politics in the lead

I don't believe that mention of his donations or political registration is due to the lead. Particularly since, as time goes on, it seems plausible that he didn't have a primarily political motivation at all.

Would anyone object to it being removed? Thanks, KlayCax (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Support I made a similar proposal a few days ago. Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose I suspect the main thing most people want to know about him is what his political persuasion was, and whether his actions were motivated by that persuasion. That's my main interest in him, I don't think I'm alone. So in the interest of not burying the lead, it should remain. (Also, as it currently stands, the lead is not overly long, so there is no size-based argument for trimming.) Yilloslime (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the lead is merely a WP:SUMMARY of the body and the final paragraph is a due summary of Political activities. Per Yilloslime, there remains interest in Crooks' political motivations, if any, and therefore the summary shouldn't be removed for this reason either. Granted as time goes on the situation may become clearer, but until then what is known should be included. CNC (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose A perpetrator's political activities are highly relevant in the attempted assassination of a politician, especially given that no direct, clear, stated motive/manifesto exists. MightyLebowski (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: It isn't clear what his political viewpoints were nor is it clear if this was politically motivated or for another reason. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: As per Super Goku V reasons. Melbguy05 (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Matthew_Crooks/Archive_2&oldid=1239201804"