Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks/Archive 1

Defensive party registration
Pennsylvania is a closed primary state. So, sources are speculating that Crooks registered as a Republican so he could vote against Trump, and Trump-backed candidates, in Republican primary elections, and the failure to defeat Trump in that primary likely influenced his decision to try to assassinate him. Being a registered Republican would still allow him to vote for Democrats in the general elections. 152.130.15.110 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * he changed when he turned 18 in late 2021. if he registered as a Republican then i doubt that was his motive for 3 years later. probably some sort of radicalisation turned him and he never ended up changing his registration IEditPolitics (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

You gotta be 35 to run for president
It stated that he tried to run for president but he’s under the age to do so… (I know not professional but just putting the obvious out. 2600:1016:B029:C3FE:5411:B265:A653:257F (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Should be a redirect?
I think? Oeoi (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes until there is good reasons to turn it into an article on its own. Bohbye (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm in the same camp. We know very little about the shooter, and it would be better to cover the shooter as part of a larger page about the broader topic of the assassination attempt, with more context. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 06:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * would be assassins are generally are given their own page - this being the case with the Ford attempts. 70.169.187.178 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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


 * nvm about the plural part... Tdwizew (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Grammar
Where it says “he donated $15” it should say “he had donated $15”, as the text has just said that afterwards he registered himself as a Republican. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"was allegedly purchased by his father[4] to fire eight rounds from a rooftop"
Come on! What kind of misleading statement is that? Dad buying a gun for his son for this very specific purpose? Movies have blooper reels, I guess this one makes the en-WP reel. 2003:C6:3742:EEB8:8C09:30D:D977:8BC1 (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * ✅. Thank you for pointing this out.  C F A   💬  20:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (2)
change July 14 to Jul 13, cause that's when it happened. 24.38.199.114 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been fixed. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * ✔️: This has already been fixed.  C F A   💬  20:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * What about all these who dont have their own Wiki pages? Trade (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then express your concerns on the deletion page, not here. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This page should not be deleted. BrendonJH (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We also know a whole hell of a lot more about those other failed assassins. Seems irresponsible to repeat information circulating so early in the press; these kinds of stories tend to evolve very quickly and have a lot of incomplete, out of context info circulating. Just look at the comments on this tall page: what few bits of info that are "known" about this person's politics are being made suspect. I read that a reporter spoke to this person's father who implied that he hadn't even spoken to law enforcement yet and was trying to figure out what was going on himself. Seems prudent to show some humility and patience with this one. 2600:1700:8D70:1490:8DA9:3F2C:7129:547 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Should not be deleted.
This is a major political event that has been covered by the world over, from Malaysia, Australia, India, China, Russia, et-cetera. When compared to say, school shooting they get little coverage outside the US unless they are major. This assassin was only centimeters from killing one of the most controversial/polarizing figures in American history. If Manson has an article so should this guy. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I also agree that this article should not be deleted (yet). People like to read about the profile of a shooter and it is important to have a reliable source. Wikipedia may be that reliable source if evil wikipedian does not erase that information, instead of validating and fixing issues. Martiniturbide (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This should be obvious to anyone in touch with reality.
 * Modern Wikipedia is Reddit in everything but name. 85.135.216.213 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Disgree- I think that the redirect links on either person’s Wikipedia page would be fine, maybe something like “Not to be confused with the American football coach: Thomas Crooks” A guy from murica97390 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait for now, but I imagine Thomas Matthew Crooks will end up being the primary topic for Thomas Crooks.  C F A   💬  17:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * @Gammawammallama Based on the AfD discussions, the community has decided otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
How the fuck did people !vote keep on two different AfDs. This is a useless content fork of the main article.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The community evidently disagrees. GhostOfNoMeme 21:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Well, now that photo has been deleted. Awaiting new version. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Verbiage should be changed to:

On July 14, 2024, Brooks attempted to assassinate Donald Trump at a political rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. He injured Trump, two attendees and killed one attendee. He was subsequently killed by the Secret Service Counter Assault Team. 74.105.228.46 (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reworded the sentence.  C F A   💬  22:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Add the photo from the shooting page to the info box
I believe the drivers license photograph image should appear on the infobox Minecraft812 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌: The file was deleted on Commons. Someone needs to upload a stable, presumably fair-use image of him so it can stay in the article.  C F A   💬  21:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2024 (2)
Change “Motive: Unknown” to “Motive: Under investigation” Editstobenefit (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I mean... if it's under investigation, then I assume it's currently unknown, no?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
How the fuck did people !vote keep on two different AfDs. This is a useless content fork of the main article.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Photo
Perhaps his driver's license picture, as released by NBC News, is the best candidate for a free photo so far. IANAL but driver's license pictures, which are taken by machines, fit a very strict standard under AAMVA standards (p. 34) and hence doesn't allow for any original authorship or creative input; it is uncopyrightable in the U.S. per the Copyright Compedium (p. 17). Maybe the Commons PD-automated template would be a good fit for this. NAADAAN (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * good idea Gahror (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure, a human being (in this case a DMV worker) still has to initiate the action of taking the photograph, so I would assume it'd be treated like a photograph taken by a photographer with a camera. In that case it'd be copyrighted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's PennDOT. While some U.S. states have public domain release for governmental works, I don't think Pennsylvania is one of them. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if someone has to click the shutter button, that doesn't constitute creative input especially if they're constrained by AAMVA standards. If there's no creative input in taking the photograph, then the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cannot claim copyright on the picture. There are templates like PD-ID-France which are based on this principle. NAADAAN (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Booking photos in the U.S. are taken using a very similar system. We generally consider booking photos to be copyrighted unless released via some other mechanism than automated. Regardless, I've placed the image for deletion on Commons. Whether I'm right or you're right, having an affirmative closure on the issue via a deletion discussion is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

AFD
I just tried to AFD this, thinking WP:TWINKLE would've notified of past AfDs when trying to AfD it. I was mistaken. I apologize for any editors that were forced to read my rationale and comment there, and I don't intend to renominate this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

political party should be removed
John Hinckley Jr.'s political party isnt listed so it's strange to have his listed. that's not important at all and doesn't help the article any. 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:645A:4640:4027:17E9 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 (4)
This site needs to be deleted ASAP. NO credit should be given to this Animal. 50.104.110.142 (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Personal characterization
The people who knew him best have contested the narrative that he was bullied, quiet, or a loner to an unusual degree. CNN Inquirer In any case, this character sketch follows a vulgar and reflexive (and therefore essentially meaningless and unreliable) trope about shooters. At the very least, the article should take a skeptical stance cognizant of that fact, saying "He has been characterized as X, though this has been contested by Y." Hikeddeck (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are duplicating a discussion about contradictions already being had at . Uncle G (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not the same thing, most people are not even particularly political, especially at his age. It remains dubious whether he was. Following is from the Guardian's blog:

''In Bethel Park, where the man who is suspected of opening fire at a Donald Trump campaign rally on Saturday lived with his mother and sister, the houses are small and built of brick, Walmart and Target form central social hubs, and moms watch over their children at a junior league baseball park next to a tributary of the Allegheny river.

''Claire, a young woman who had known Thomas Matthew Crooks through his elder sister and who did not provide a last name, said she could not quite believe the boy she had once knew had attempted to assassinate a US president. “He’s so young to want to go do that”, she said.''

''She said Crooks had had a difficult time socially. “He wasn’t the most attractive-looking and I don’t think he did sports that can add appeal’” she said..."''


 * Claire's straightforwardness here is rather amazing, even if she didn't know him really and he won't hear anymore what he was probably all too aware of anyway. Imagine this is how people usually talk about you, behind your back. Moving away at least a couple hundred miles is about the best option. Provided you have the means, financial or otherwise.

"Jim Knapp, who retired from his job as the school counselor at Bethel Park High School in 2022, said Crooks had always been “quiet as a churchmouse,” “respectful” and kept to himself. He contradicted some statements by former pupils which suggested Crooks had been frequently bullied, telling Reuters he rarely came across Crooks because “he wasn’t a needy type kid.”

''Crooks occasionally ate lunch by himself in the school cafeteria, said Knapp, who would engage such students to see if they wanted company. “Kids weren’t calling him names, kids weren’t bullying him,” Knapp said.''

''Knapp said he never knew Crooks to be political in any way. “Anybody could snap, anybody could have issues,” he said. “Something triggered that young man and drove him to drive up to Butler yesterday and do what he did.”''


 * Finally someone who knows what he's talking about. Maybe an introvert but there's little to suggest he was bullied in a significant way. Likely kept too much to himself and disengaged too far from others as to make that even possible. He didn't care. Can actually be a preventive strategy, whether conscious or not. Like so many people I wasn't unlike this, never got harassed. How to bully a question mark? At this time anything else should be kept out of the article until there's a robust foundation, in particular when it comes to construals regarding "motivations". -199.116.118.201 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 (3)
LinkedIn profile for father indicates

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


 * LinkedIn is not a reliable source. Any news websites report on this? BarntToust (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 100.6.87.191 (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Consensus is that personal information about Crooks' parents is not relevant to the article and should not be included. Per WP:BLPREMOVE it should not be added, and should be removed immediately if anyone else does so. Please do not post this again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * there's a clear statement about his parents at the end of the first paragraph in early life and education so be consistent. and at least know that social workers and LPCs are not the same.  educate yourselves. 100.6.87.191 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The lede lacks citation
There is a lot of important information in the lede, but it lacks references. It is especially crucial to add citations, particularly regarding his political leanings. Frankserafini87 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Typicaly the lede merely summarizes sourced material in the article's body. Is that not the case here? -- Zim Zala Bim talk 22:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Lead sections generally do not have inline citations as long as the information is accurately cited somewhere else in the article. See WP:LEADCITE. Donald Trump, for example, has no citations in the lead.  C F A   💬  22:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Lede citations in any proper article sumarize cited content within it. Irrelevant (non-) concern. BarntToust (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

"Demolition Ranch" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demolition_Ranch&redirect=no Demolition Ranch] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. C F A  💬  18:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2024
Delete presumptive nominee because he was nominated today 70.58.22.56 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done The sentence has already been reworded.  C F A   💬  04:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


 * Change to “45th president and presidential candidate”? The changes may be wordy. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel like the obvious choice would be to change it to "former President". QuicoleJR (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Some reports indicate that he didn't actually hit trump at all. That only the blowby blew his eardrum. This detail is unclear and crucial to delineate. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024
I believe that classmates discussion about Thomas Matthew Crooks should be considered hearsay. They are inconsistent, as some say he was only slight right-wing while others say he was defiantly conservative. Some accounts even say he was apolitical. Even so, the bar of what's considered "right-wing" and "conservative" differs from person to person.

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

"On January 20, 2021, at the age of 17, he donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a liberal voter turnout group, through the Democratic Party donation platform ActBlue. His donation was made the same day Joe Biden was sworn into office. According to the Progressive Turnout Project, he made the donation in response to an e-mail about "tuning into" the inauguration and was unsubscribed from the group's mailing list in 2022." 156.146.74.135 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are duplicating a discussion about contradictions already being had at . Uncle G (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. As noted there is already a discussion about this further up the page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 (2)
Please change "On January 20, 2021, at the age of 17, he donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a leftist voter turnout group, through the Democratic Party donation platform ActBlue." to "On January 20, 2021, at the age of 17, he donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a liberal voter turnout group, through the Democratic Party donation platform ActBlue."

None of the references describe the Progressive Turnout Project as "leftist." BBC News describes the group as "liberal," Reuters describes the group as "a Democratic Party cause," and The Times of Israel describes the group as "a national group that rallies Democrats to vote." The group was originally described as "liberal" until this edit arbitrarily changed the description to "leftist." SpaceDiver221 (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 13:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * ✔️: The "July 14" in that section refers to the date the FBI identified Crooks as the shooter in the assassination attempt the previous day. No corrections need to be made.  C F A   💬  00:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Please Delete
This page is long and includes a photo and details which demonstrate how famous you can become in an instant. Please delete this page immediately. It provides an incentive for young would-be famous people to commit similar acts. I recommend folding it into an article about the assassination attempt itself. 100.0.119.118 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 July 2024 (2)
Please fix the first citation in "Early life and education":

Kovcszaln6 (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed by User:ActivelyDisinterested, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Could someone with permissions change "allged" to "alleged"? VoidBehemoth (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been fixed. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary documents
I removed a posted image containing info on Crooks as well as personal details of other people, presumably still living, not related to this controversy, per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. We can cite reliable sources that have examined primary documents without needing to showcase the documents themselves, public domain or not. We don't need to turn this or any article into a scrapbook of court documents, receipts, and voter registration records, especially if it increases risks to other people's security. &#45;-Animalparty! (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not authorized to access facility
This might fall afoul of WP:NOR (or just WP:RSPX) since as far as I know it was only published on twitter, but in the interest of contributing something rather than just being a non-inclusionist:

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

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

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

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

Does anyone have any idea what "tuning into" means in this context?
Per the CNN source:

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

__

Is it possible that he paid $15 to watch a stream of the inauguration, or something to that effect? If anyone is subscribed to their mailing list can you please check for that email on the day of his inauguration? 2601:243:C004:F790:4917:A3F:CE28:C2FF (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are asking Wikipedia editors to perform journalistic legwork, finding out stuff firsthand. The right thing here is to go to CNN's comments section, or use whatever contact mechanisms there are for the people in the byline, and ask the authors of CNN's piece what "tuning into the inauguration" means.  The proper people to do the journalistic legwork are the journalists themselves.  I suspect that you'll find that they've quoted their source directly because they do not know what the source was saying, either.  &#9786;  But they really should have followed up with their source on what "tuning into" means in the 2020s. Uncle G (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


 * removed after dropsites correction NAADAAN (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No one has demonstrated the donation didn't fit any of the numerous exceptions noted, and, probably isnt of substantial amount that it would ever be brought into question. Basicaly, just being enough to cover processing fees. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * Any port in a storm. 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 2600:4040:58DC:D200:F873:7F90:8BC6:F846 (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've removed it  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A quote is a quote is a quote. If someone said it and it was reported, it's innately probative. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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


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


 * "may have aquired" is speculative original research. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 16:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * CNN cites state records as the source of information about the parents' political registration (https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/14/us/trump-rally-gunman-thomas-crooks-invs/index.html). I also found an inaccuracy: the politician described the Bethel park area as a "large spattering", not the family.
 * Please change:
 * According to a local politician who met Crooks's parents while canvassing, his mother was a Democrat and his father a Libertarian. The politician described the family as a "large spattering of different backgrounds and ideals".[6]
 * Crooks was a registered Republican,[1][2][4][3] and his voter registration was active since September 2021, the month he turned 18.[1] A former classmate of Crooks described him as "slightly right leaning".[6] Officials say he had only voted in the 2022 midterm elections.[7]
 * On January 20, 2021, at the age of 17, he donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a liberal voter turnout group, through the Democratic Party donation platform ActBlue, an organization dedicated to improving turnout among Democratic Party voters.[9][11][3][21] His donation was made the same day Joe Biden was sworn into office.[8][22] According to the Progressive Turnout Project, he made the donation in response to an e-mail about "tuning into" the inauguration and was unsubscribed from the group's mailing list in 2022.[22][7]
 * Change to:
 * Crooks was a registered Republican,[1][2][4][3] and his voter registration was active since September 2021, the month he turned 18.[1] A former classmate of Crooks described him as "slightly right leaning".[6] Officials say he had only voted in the 2022 midterm elections.[7]
 * On January 20, 2021, at the age of 17, he donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a liberal voter turnout group, through the Democratic Party donation platform ActBlue, an organization dedicated to improving turnout among Democratic Party voters.[9][11][3][21] His donation was made the same day Joe Biden was sworn into office.[8][22] According to the Progressive Turnout Project, he made the donation in response to an e-mail about "tuning into" the inauguration and was unsubscribed from the group's mailing list in 2022.[22][7]
 * Crooks's father is a registered Libertarian and his mother is a registered Democrat.[7] According to a local politician who met Crooks's parents while canvassing, the family's political mix is "fairly typical" for the Bethel Park area.[6] Katealamode (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Crooks's father is a registered Libertarian and his mother is a registered Democrat.[7] According to a local politician who met Crooks's parents while canvassing, the family's political mix is "fairly typical" for the Bethel Park area.[6] Katealamode (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Reordered the section so that his political views come before those of his parents.  C F A   💬  20:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The information about his parents is a BLP privacy issue and shouldn't included. Please remove it if it is re-added. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also a misquote. The source states that a single, unnamed classmate said that he "seemed" (meaning that he's not sure) "slightly right leaning". That's vague and amorphous enough to mean almost anything. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and we should definitely not engage in speculation of him being conservative, liberal, socialist, or fascist until more information is given. KlayCax (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While parents are certainly less influential than everyone else in a child's upbringing in todays society, it is something that can be cited and should be cited. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * I agree. Unless he shared or said something there that's relevant to the shooting, it should be removed. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 18:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is very irrelevant especially considering it was inactive KyleSirTalksAlot (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was not inactive. Discord came out and said he posted, but not related. 2A00:1370:8184:3421:DE09:E2EE:3300:21A4 (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree given a note worthy trend of radicalized rhetoric trafficked on discord. If it's a typical platform where group polarization can take place it's core to the article and not tangential. Discord isnt just a place to voice, it's also a place to listen. Social media cites are specifically well purposed for intel drops besides their intended purposes. Even the fact that it is so difficult to guess Crooks's motives indicates the possibility of a sophistication excess of a normal 20yo boy's capabilities. For these reasons no detail, no matter how slight, should be omitted. Even the time of each revelation is important to note with an accompanied timeline. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been any source claiming anything about the discord account other than the fact that it exists. While not a WP:RELIABLE source, streamer Hasanabi claimed there really wasn't anything on his account, not even a profile picture.
 * Unless something comes out about his activities on discord, it probably falls under WP:NOTEVERYTHING Emma0mb talk 17:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Facebook, reddit, twitter have all at been discussed for the politics (radical and otherwise) posted on those websites. it is not notable for someone to JUST have an account on any of those websites. Gnisacc (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well said in general, but until proven relevant it does seem unnecessary DarkMatterBurger88 (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The same is true of cellphones. There is no line which states that "he has a cell phone." While noting which social media accounts he had is necessary for an investigation, unless it becomes relevant evidence it is not appropriate to list on a wikipedia article and is likely intended to paint a biased picture of discord and its users, who are no more radical than those of other media. Discord contains a vast number of users with a diverse spectrum of opinion, moderate, extreme, or otherwise. 2600:1700:6E90:42B0:B241:A67E:27B9:659A (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * @74.15.150.131 Nothing that I can find as of early July 15th 2024. R8cobra (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely zip. I cant even find if the assasin was working on steel sights or optics. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.laprensa.hn/mundo/fusil-thomas-crooks-disparar-trump-comprado-legalmente-padre-pensilvania-estados-unidos-EH20361544 (This image is solely on the weapon, no deceased people are in the photos. But having seen the "wider" photo I believe that this is legit)
 * While the image is extremely blurry, I would say that it was some kind of red dot. I am basing this off my own AR-15 with a red dot and the position of the sight on the rifle. (A longer "box" on top of the rifle would indicate a scope, and the box on top of the rifle at the rear of the weapon would indicate some kind of prism optic.)
 * Obviously not enough to make an edit, but enough to satisfy personal curiosity. 2601:47:4900:E4D0:6545:748A:4D18:B30D (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Exactly it doesn't really prove that he's Jewish. Just says that he is with no evidence. He's from bethel park. A mostly christian town with no synagogues Thunderbolt4000 (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it should be noted that it said so but with obvious disclaimer. This isnt the type of article that should have reclessly omitted content. 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The best way to counter this might be to find a source that gives his religion or that of his parents? Htrowsle (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * His grandfather was Lutheran no Judaism at all.

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

"Political views" doesn't describe his views
The "Political views" section merely notes his party registration and then some minor donations through channels associated with the opposing political party. Neither of these provide any insight to his political "views". If any of this is even insightful at all, the section should be titled "Political activity" or something like that. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


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


 * I decided to WP:BOLD and removed the gun range mention (not inherently an expression of a political view) and changed the section to "activities". -- Zim Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 23:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * what if this is true x.com/acnewsitics/status/1812543831889313897?s=46&t=8ldZzn0DJKAF9TZnsepjyw 2603:6011:9600:52C0:E087:EC8A:C8EE:532B (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Twitter isn't a reliable source. It doesn't matter what is posted on twitter. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sustained 2600:100E:B072:1D1:10C:7E84:5A43:7249 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)